- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:56 +0100
- To: Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>
- CC: GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
Brian Suda wrote: > <rdf:RDF xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" > xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/" > xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" > xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" > xmlns:vcard="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#" > xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" > xmlns:review="http://www.purl.org/stuff/rev#" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:mf="http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/mf-templates.xsl?template="> > <Description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" rdf:about="_666"> Question: Do you really want to be creating a new URI here? rdf:about="_666" generates a URI (not a bnode). This URI depends on I guess, the exact format of the input, and is not stable with minor variations of the input. Also the URI is an unhelpful URI in that, it's full form with the editors draft is: <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc29/_666> which 404s. I think rdf:nodeID="x_666" would be better, introducing a bnode. Other than that, simply updating hotel-data.rdf should suffice. Does the Primer include SPARQL results and example SPARQL queries against this GRDDL result. If so, those queries and results may need updating. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 11:36:11 UTC