W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Question from the RDF-in-XHTML task force on the HTML Role Attribute

From: Pete Johnston <p.johnston@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:24:49 +0100
Message-ID: <43539811.8090008@ukoln.ac.uk>
To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ben Adida wrote:

> Specifically, we're considering assigning a RDF property to the ROLE  
> attribute in HTML, for example:
> 
> ==========
> <div role="dcterms:abstract">
> .... the summary of the document....
> </div>
> ==========
> 
> would yield a triple:
> 
> ==========
> _:div0 xhtml2:role dcterms:abstract .
> ==========
> 
> The question is, what should xhtml2:role be? Should it be simply  
> rdf:type? Should it be xhtml2:role with no relationship to rdf:type?  

Given that DCMI defines dcterms:abstract (URI= 
http://purl.org/dc/terms/abstract) as a property not a class - i.e. it's 
use is

document has-abstract summary

rather than

document is-a abstract

- I don't think you want an rdf:type relationship (or subproperty of 
rdf:type)?

Or maybe you do, and the use of dcterms:abstract isn't a good example of 
a typical value of the role attribute?

> How should we go about making this decision? Are there guidelines for  
> subclassing rdf:type?

Cheers

Pete
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 12:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:14 GMT