- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:36:34 +0200
- To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi,
Libby Miller wrote:
> right so this makes sense to me. You'd have
>
> http://example.com/page1.html/*/h:a/[@href=contactus.html]
> lisa:contentType lisa:SiteMapLink
>
> (sorry, that pathetic stab at an xpointer is probably completely wrong)
You'd certainly need a hash mark somewhere in there if it's supposed to
be an xpointer :-)
But more to the point, I think what Lisa meant was:
http://example.com/page1.html/*/h:a/[@href=contactus.html]
lisa:contentType _:a.
_:a rdf:type lisa:SiteMapLink.
(Erm. Well. Hey, I don't speak xpointer, either! ;-) )
My guess is that it would be better to treat the XML fragment as the
link, though:
http://example.com/page1.html/*/h:a/[@href=contactus.html]
rdf:type lisa:SiteMapLink.
If you need additional attributes, you can place them on the same resource:
http://example.com/page1.html/*/h:a/[@href=contactus.html]
rdf:type lisa:SiteMapLink;
dc:date "2004-08-03"^^xsd:date.
>> On the other hand , my friend, (who is probably brighter then me, so I
>> should at least entertain the possibility that he is right) is saying I
>> should change the following:
>>
>> 2, "has content type" is the predicate and is defined as a CLASS in an RDF
>> schema
If it's a predicate, it has to be a property. (It's AFAIK not strictly
speaking illegal for it to be a class in addition to a property, but it
wouldn't make sense.)
>> 3 a "site map link" is the object and should be defined in an XML
>> restricted language.
I don't understand what exactly this means -- an XML literal that
contains information about the link? That wouldn't be illegal, but it
certainly wouldn't seem to be good style.
Cheers,
- Benja
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 13:37:30 UTC