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

Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:13:43 +0000
Message-ID: <640dd5061002020213r604f3504j7bc8edbc12c90ef3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Cc: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Hi Michael,

I disagree with the point made in the email you refer to, from Richard.

Only one triple is generated in your sample, so nowhere do we have an
indication that #me is both a person and an HTML element in a
document.

My point is that it would be good practice to keep these things apart,
but I think it's going too far to say that we create some kind of
contradiction if we don't.

Regards,

Mark



On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Michael Hausenblas
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
> Stephane,
>
> 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
> "http://sw-app.org/"
>
> 1: <div about="#me" typeof="foaf:Person">
> 2:  <a rel="foaf:homepage" href="http://sw-app.org/about.html">my
> homepage</a>
> 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].
>
> Cheers,
>      Michael
>
> [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
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>
>
>
>> 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 10:14:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 February 2010 10:14:20 GMT