W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Determination of subjects/objects

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:02:36 +0200
Message-ID: <46AF08BC.8080209@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Knud Hinnerk Möller <knud.moeller@deri.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> Thanks for this clarification. So is it fair to say that the ability
> to have named bnodes is secondary? 

yes, I agree with that. I would not have sleepless nights over a missing
[_:abc] constrution; the user could just use an id with an explicit URI

>                                      If so, the use-case you describe
> here is much easier.
>> What I simply do not see at the moment is how I can use RDFa to generate
>> something like:
>> <> a:b [ q:r "yep" ].
>> Ie an unnamed and untyped BNode. There are lots of examples of using
>> such constructs.
> This is definitely a common construct, and it can be achieved like this:
>   <span rel="a:b">
>     <span property="q:r">yep</span>
>   </span>

Oops. I was misled by the use case I had for collections. Right, that works.

But what I would like to express is:

[ a rdf:Seq;
  rdf:_1 [ q:r "yep" ];
  rdf:_2 [ s:t "yup" ]

what is the solution for that?

We _could_ say, of course, that RDFa does _not_ have a construction for
that, and move on. Which is o.k. for rdf:Seq, because that can be
encoded directly without too much trouble, but becomes a royal pain if
what I want to express is:

<> abc:def ([q:r "yep"] [s:t "yup])


> Regards,
> Mark


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:02:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC