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

Re: Information resources and RDFa

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 19:11:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4466133C.4000301@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Ben Adida wrote:
> Ivan,
> There is no need to apologize: your input on this is important, and  we
> encourage more chiming in.


> We have explored the idea of nested statements to build deep RDF 
> graphs. None of the solutions we've come up with have been very  pretty
> in the end, because they tend to generate vastly more triples  than the
> author intends. 

I was afraid of that :-)

>                  We're open to continued suggestions on this,  of course.
> [snip]
> Our current bnode support is best when using existing HTML elements 
> without IDs. For example, your example could be written as:
> =========
> <body>
> ...
> <p>
>     <link rev="dc:creator" href="" />
>     blah blah blah, <meta property="dc:name">Ivan Herman</meta>
> </p>
> ...
> </body>

Ben, are you sure that is what you meant? Or did you mean:

   <link rev="dc:creator" href="" >
     blah blah blah, <meta property="dc:name">Ivan Herman</meta>

which might be very close to what I said (I did not think of using the
'rev' trick).

In both cases we should get

<:> dc:creator [ dc:name "Ivan Herman" ].

So why is this fundamentally different than what I wrote?

> =========
> Now, your examples below are interesting, in that you're only asking 
> for special rules when inside a LINK or META. Note one problem: by 
> default those will be display:none, and if you choose to display  them,
> then everything inside LINK will be clickable.... 

Well, I am not sure I understand. In XHTML1.1, the link and the meta can
appear in the head only. Allowing them in the body is something we did
not have before, so there is no *necessity* to have them display:none,
it can/must be defined as part of RDFa, right? They can just be defined
as the 'div' elements with the extra semantics re RDFa (namely the
possibility to create a blank node...). But there might be another
reason why the display:none is necessary... please tell me.

> -Ben
> PS: Keep an eye out for my next email, which *might* simplify things  a
> bit more, if the TF agrees with my note.

I will!



> On May 11, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Ben,
>> I am sorry to chime in this mail, and maybe the issue I raise have
>> already been discussed before...
>> However, I respectfully disagree on your remark below on the usage of
>> bnodes. At some point a few months ago Steven Pemberton and I played
>> with the convertsion of a set of RDF statements (on public
>> presentations, the RDF data that I use for our tals database[1])  and one
>> of the difficulties was the fact that we had to *name* each node, even
>> if they were bnodes. Not only it is a pain in the backside because one
>> has to be careful to use unique names, but that could make any  automatic
>> generation of such files more difficult.
>> Looking at Mark's example (for example, [2]) I wonder whether it is
>> possible (ie, whether it crashes with something else) to push  nesting a
>> little bit further and say:
>> <head>
>>     <meta>
>>         <link rel="dc:creator" ref="http://blabla/>
>>         ...
>>     </meta>
>> </head>
>> or having the same possibility to do something like that in the body:
>> <body>
>>     <link rel="dc:creator">
>>         <p>Bla bla bla <span property="dc:name">Ivan
>> Herman</span>....</p>
>>     </link>
>> Both cases would be the equivalents of using '[ .... ]' in turtle, ie,
>> the creation of a blank nodes without bothering with the name...
>> If that was considered before and shot down with good reasons, then I
>> stand corrected:-)
>> Ivan
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/08/W3CTalks
>> [2] http://skimstone.x-port.net/node/272
>> Ben Adida wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Steven, I'm fairly certain that Mark meant href="#author", and not
>>> href="#about". Mark, can you confirm? I also don't think that's a
>>> bnode... quite the contrary, it's an addressable node, it's just not
>>> an identified XHTML element. In fact, I suspect more and more that
>>> users of RDFa will probably use bnodes rarely, because it's just much
>>> easier to identify all the nodes when you're dealing in HTML.
>> -- 
>> Ivan Herman
>> W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
>> C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
>> 1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>> tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
>> URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/


Ivan Herman
W3C Communications Team, Head of Offices
C/o W3C Benelux Office at CWI, Kruislaan 413
1098SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
tel: +31-20-5924163; mobile: +31-641044153;
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

Received on Saturday, 13 May 2006 17:11:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT