W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: The harm that can come if the W3C supports publication of competing specs

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:41:39 +0100
To: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u6qzvppdsr6mfa@worf>
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:47:29 +0100, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:

> Cyclical references amongst blank nodes cannot be represented in
> Microdata. In Turtle an example might be:
> 	@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> .
> 	_:bob foaf:knows _:jon .
> 	_:jon foaf:knows _:bob .
> In RDFa it can be expressed quite simply:
> 	<p xmlns:knows="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows"
> 	   about="_:jon" rel="knows:" rev="knows:" resource="_:bob">
> 	  Jon and Bob know each other.
> 	</p>
> To express the same semantics in Microdata would require assigning a URI
> to at least one of the people. Certainly it's possible for a script to
> assign a URI on the fly, but committing to maintaining the meaning of
> that URI long-term is harder, which is why blank nodes are so frequently
> used in RDF.
> I believe, this could be addressed by allowing @itemid to contain a
> blank node name, and providing a way for @itemprop to specify a blank
> node as its value.

Right, if there's an actual need then it's easy to hardwire the _:foo  
syntax to create blank nodes in the RDF extraction algorithm. Currently  
the algorithm ignores item types which aren't absolute URIs. Is _:foo an  
absoute URI, or is it not a URI at all?

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 21:41:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:07 UTC