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

Re: Suggestion for Microdata to RDF conversion

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:51:09 +0100
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20100125105109.3A4F6.1.1D@semsol.com>
On 22.01.2010 20:41:50, Graham Klyne wrote:
>Benjamin Nowack wrote:
>> P.S. as I just saw Ian's comment on IRC[1]:
>> This algorithm ignores non-RDF structures such as
>>    <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/">
>>       <span itemprop="a/b"/>
>>    </div>
>> or
>>    <div itemscope itemtype="http://example.com/a/">
>>       <span itemprop="b"/>
>>    </div> 
>> because common RDF vocabularies simply don't use URI patterns 
>> like "http://example.com/" or "http://example.com/a/" to 
>> declare resource types.
>Maybe I'm missing something
yes, you do. We've been talking about both slash- and hash-URIs.


>, but looking at this and some ensuing messages, you 
>seem to be saying that URIs without fragments are not used as types in RDF.  I 
>think this isn't true.  There is tendency towards using fragment identifiers on 
>newly designed vocabularies, but many early vocabularies do use type URIs 
>without fragment identifiers.  FOAF Agent (http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent) is 
>an example.
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 09:51:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:57 UTC