W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

RDFa examples on the SW Home page

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:33:32 +0100
Message-ID: <47B80D7C.40208@w3.org>
To: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
CC: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Just for the fun of it and for an info...

I have annotated the following two files in RDFa:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.html
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ.html

yielding

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Overview.rdf
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ.rdf

It was a good exercise to see how such pages can be turned into RDFa and 
generate decent RDF. Most of the times it works quite well. In some 
cases the combination of a <a> and the rules on instanceof made it a bit 
awkward to set the right coding, so I had to rely on an explicit 
rdf:type rather than the usage of instanceof:

  <a rel="org:includes" href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/">
    <span rel="rdf:type"
          resource="[org:CoordinationGroup]"
          property="org:name">Coordination Group</span>
</a>

Indeed, I did not really find a better way of encoding

<> org:includes <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/>
<http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/CG/>
    a org:CoordinationGroup;
    org:name "Coordination Group".

Any usage of the instanceof somehow generated new bnode. I may have 
missed an obvious approach though, so tell me if I did... To be clear: 
_I do not have a problem with this_ in the sense that @instanceof is a 
suitable abbreviation and nothing more. Ie if, in some cases, an 
explicit rdf:type is used, well, that is fine with me.

Ivan


-- 

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 Sunday, 17 February 2008 10:33:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 February 2008 10:33:44 GMT