W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: In or out of line?

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 19:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <410FCD22.8020404@gmx.de>
To: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


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:

       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:

        rdf:type   lisa:SiteMapLink.

If you need additional attributes, you can place them on the same resource:

       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.

- Benja
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2004 13:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:52 UTC