Re: In or out of line?

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