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

Re: Question from the RDF-in-XHTML task force on the HTML Role Attribute

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:29:39 -0400
Message-Id: <42842ADA-30E3-4C75-B8FE-8945473EA3FB@mit.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>


Sorry, Pete, that's my fault: a bad example due to a last-minute  
attempt at simplifying the problem.

Here's a better example that's more related to one of our issues in  
serializing FOAF documents:

===========
<div role="foaf:Person">
Ben Adida
</div>
===========

which would yield a triple:

===========
_:div0 xhtml2:role foaf:Person .
===========


-Ben




On Oct 17, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Pete Johnston wrote:

> Ben Adida wrote:
>
>
>> Specifically, we're considering assigning a RDF property to the  
>> ROLE  attribute in HTML, for example:
>> ==========
>> <div role="dcterms:abstract">
>> .... the summary of the document....
>> </div>
>> ==========
>> would yield a triple:
>> ==========
>> _:div0 xhtml2:role dcterms:abstract .
>> ==========
>> The question is, what should xhtml2:role be? Should it be simply   
>> rdf:type? Should it be xhtml2:role with no relationship to rdf:type?
>>
>
> Given that DCMI defines dcterms:abstract (URI= http://purl.org/dc/ 
> terms/abstract) as a property not a class - i.e. it's use is
>
> document has-abstract summary
>
> rather than
>
> document is-a abstract
>
> - I don't think you want an rdf:type relationship (or subproperty  
> of rdf:type)?
>
> Or maybe you do, and the use of dcterms:abstract isn't a good  
> example of a typical value of the role attribute?
>
>
>> How should we go about making this decision? Are there guidelines  
>> for  subclassing rdf:type?
>>
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete
>
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 16:30:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT