W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:38:52 +0000
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
CC: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-ID: <C78D951C.C76A%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
I by and large agree with Mark, however ...

> Whilst it doesn't hurt to have an @id though, my preference would be not to.

Hm. Not so sure about this one. Let's look at the following example,
namespace declarations assumed to be done already, and the base URI is

1: <div about="#me" typeof="foaf:Person">
2:  <a rel="foaf:homepage" href="http://sw-app.org/about.html">my
3: </div>
4: <div id="me">
5:  yada yada
6: </div>

What I am saying here is that the *part of the document (4-6)*, identified
by "http://sw-app.org/#me, is of type foaf:Person. Richard explained it much
more elegant a while ago [1]. I don't think this is what we want to express.

In any case, I'm gonna take this discussion into account for updates on [2].


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0157.html
[2] http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/#checklist-fragid

Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

> From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:55:12 +0000
> To: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> Cc: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley
> <danbri@danbri.org>
> Subject: Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents
> Resent-From: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:56:50 +0000
> Hi Stéphane,
> As you imply, there is actually no need for an @id value. For some
> reason many examples that people have created in the past have tried
> to align @about and @id, but it really isn't necessary.
> Whilst it doesn't hurt to have an @id though, my preference would be not to.
> As things stand today it's unlikely that there would be a confusion,
> but I don't know if you are familiar with @role (another W3C standard
> which myself, Shane and Steven have been involved in), but with that
> you really are making statements about an HTML element. I'm hoping
> that the RDFa/@role story is properly fleshed out at some point, so I
> think it would be good to try to keep the boundaries clear, ready for
> this.
> So I'd vote for your second option. :)
> Regards,
> Mark
> --
> Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
> mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com
> http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
> webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
> 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
> London, EC2A 4RR)
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Stephane Corlosquet
> <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Imagine an RDFa document describing a person. The foaf:Document URI is <>
>> and the foaf:Person URI is <#person> because you want to be able to
>> distinguish between the two; also foaf:Document and foaf:Person are
>> disjoint.
>> <>        a foaf:Document .
>> <#person> a foaf:Person .
>> <> foaf:primaryTopic <#person> .
>> If the document is describing an online account, it might have
>> <>        a sioc:User .
>> <#person> foaf:account <>.
>> My concern is about the #person fragment with regard to the HTML document.
>> If the page is only about one person, there might not be a tag with
>> id="person" in the page. Is this a problem? Should I have a tag with such
>> id, or, on the contrary, should I avoid this as to ensure the resource being
>> described is not confused with the actual HTML tag contained in the page?
>> cc'ing Dan since this message is related to his point #5 at
>> http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549
>> regards,
>> Stéphane.
Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:39:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:39:28 GMT