W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2006

RE: New RDFa Primer Draft

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:52 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C20B92F3@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


> From: Ben Adida
> . . .
> Note that I have *not* addressed Alistair's comment that a XHTML  
> fragment cannot also be a physical resource. Like Mark, Jeremy, and  
> Pat, I believe an XHTML fragment *can* also be a camera or a person.  
> I'm sure we'll face opposition on this problem, but this goes to the  
> core of whether XHTML can be a first-class serialization of RDF.

I could not find a definition of the shutr:takenWith property.   Did I
miss it?  Is it there somewhere?

In any case, as I noted earlier[6], the contentious issue that you
mention does not arise if the range of shutr:takenWith is intended to be
a document (or document fragment) that *describes* a camera, which is
how you have used it in the primer.  This is what I called the
"Shadow-Ontology" approach in [5].  Thus, I don't think the issue arises
in the current document.

References
[5] Shadow-Ontology approach to indirect identification:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0171

[6] DBooth comments on RDFa primer:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0021

David Booth
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 15:32:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:01 GMT