W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2005

Re: talking again

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 13:33:13 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: "'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force''" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.srm01ng1smjzpq@r600.ins.cwi.nl>

On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:40:55 +0200, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> wrote:

> I talked with Steven about this last week, urging that the only
> workable solution was choosing 2 attribute names. Not clear what the best
> names are, though.

Since that discussion, I talked with Mark, and he argued that the fake URL  
solutions are still workable (I expect he'll mail about it today as well).

The argument goes: suppose we adopt an XPointer solution, called, say,  
#some()

	<link about="#some(a)" rel="foaf:mbox" href="dan@example.com" />
	<link about="#some(b)" rel="foaf:mbox" href="libby@example.net" />

	<link about="#some(a)" rel="foaf:knows" href="#some(b)" />

These *look* like URIs (and have to in order to be able to use the same  
attributes), but all they really are is a message to the RDF serialiser to  
transform them into RDF bnodes. Although they are URLs in the HTML world,  
when they get into the RDF world, they are not any more, they are bnodes.

The advantages of this approach:

	The markup is simpler
	Less explaining to do
	We only have to argue about one name instead of two :-)
	
Steven
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2005 11:33:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT