- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:30:55 +0100
- To: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me@farewellutopia.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:19:00 +0200 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me@farewellutopia.com> wrote: > - I'm against requiring RDFA as this means I cannot expose my triple > store as a collection of Web-Ids without adding some templates. RDFa is a fairly suitable format for triple store dumps - after all, there's no rule saying that the HTML you generate must be pretty - a bunch of empty <span> elements garnished with @about, @rel, @resource, @property, @content, @datatype and @xml:lang ought to do the trick. RDFa 1.1 will be an even better format for dumps, as it removes the need to split the predicate and datatype URIs into CURIEs. Though there are some tricks for generating lazy CURIEs in 1.0, e.g. <span about="#i" xmlns:p="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" property="p:" content="Toby Inkster"></span> -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Monday, 12 July 2010 21:32:05 UTC