- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:36:30 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan, Niklas, I'll start replying to the new thread, but I want to point out my strong preference for not forcing authors to use the [] notation for common use cases. I don't think we need to, either. -Ben Ivan Herman wrote: > > Niklas Lindström wrote: >> Hi Ivan, >> >> I think I like this suggestion. Just to be clear, wouldn't it be >> necessary to write: >> >> <div about="[_:]"> >> > > I am not sure. Somebody (?) is supposed to write down the RDFa rules for > these. > >> though (and not just @about="_:")? That being the case, *perhaps* >> @about="[]" could be enough? Although it may not be symmetrical enough > > Yes, if you are right with the one above, than [] could also work... > > Let us wait for the exact write up of the RDFa rules for URI > abbreviation (/me avoid using the "C" word...) > > Ivan > >> or even look broken.. Sure it looks exactly the way blank nodes are >> expressed in Notation 3. But that may be unfortunate of course, since >> it would suggest that you could use N3 in the attribute value (which >> naturally isn't the case at all). That said, it does look succinct and >> "clean" in my eyes.. Though "_:" (within square brackets in "plain >> URI" attributes like @about) may be more consequential I guess. >> >> Best regards, >> Niklas >> >> >> >> On 7/18/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> Some of the issues in the past days made me thing a bit. I refer here to >>> issues like >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0143.html >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0136.html >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0137.html >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0142.html >>> >>> >>> One of the problems we are fighting with is when to generate a new blank >>> node and how... >>> >>> I guess we will have something special for about values along the lines >>> of turtle for blank nodes, right? about="_:blabla" means a blank node >>> with nodeId (to use the RDF/XML terminology) "blabla". But what is the >>> meaning of about="_:". Well, mentally, I could say that this means a >>> blank node hose nodeId I do not care about, just let the system choose >>> whatever this wants. >>> >>> What this means is that if I say >>> >>> <div property="a:b" about="_:">blabla</div> >>> >>> that would yield >>> >>> [ a:b "blabla" ] >>> >>> Or, if there are more things in <div> the blank node would act as a >>> common subject, because the same rules for @about would apply. >>> >>> In >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0137.html >>> >>> >>> Mark proposed that >>> >>> <div instanceof="foaf:Person"> >>> ... >>> </div> >>> >>> would automatically create a blank node and instanceof would apply to >>> that. In fact, we could say that the real code here is: >>> >>> >>> <div instanceof="foaf:Person" about="_:"> >>> ... >>> </div> >>> >>> in which case the rule from Mark simply come from our usual rules, >>> without any exception to instanceof (compared to the usage of @rel, ie, >>> to what the attribute applies to). >>> >>> The other issue was to create a list of anonymous blank nodes. Well >>> >>> <ul instanceof="rdf:List"> >>> <li about="_:" instanceof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name">A</li> >>> <li about="_:" instanceof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name">B</li> >>> </ul> >>> >>> would exactly do it. Note that if of the authors have his/her own >>> resource, than >>> >>> <ul instanceof="rdf:List"> >>> <li about="_:" instanceof="foaf:Person" property="foaf:name">A</li> >>> <li about="http://www.a.b.c" instanceof="foaf:Person" >>> property="foaf:name">B</li> >>> </ul> >>> >>> would of course do it, and keep it very symmetrical. >>> >>> We already have a rule on the creation of 'empty' nodes, ie >>> >>> <div rel="a:b">....</div> >>> >>> means setting a new blank node. We could keep that rule, too, I do not >>> think it would lead to any harm... >>> >>> This is really just an uncooked idea, may be absolute rubbish. But maybe >>> it is worth looking at it... >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>> URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html >>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>> >>> >
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 14:39:48 UTC