W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [foaf-protocols] WebID pre-alpha specification (uses RDFa)

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>
Message-ID: <20100712223055.5d60c3cd@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT