- From: Eric Hellman <openurl@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:00:56 -0400
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-lod@w3.org
- Message-Id: <CFCADA3C-6A8F-4CF3-A479-3836F8CF9531@gmail.com>
As my first attempt at producing RDFa, I tried some reification. Very verbose, but it worked: http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2009/05/reif-part-2-future-of-rdf-rdfa-and.html I found the RDFa documentation to be very good. Thanks Mark. Eric Hellman President, Gluejar, Inc. 41 Watchung Plaza, #132 Montclair, NJ 07042 USA eric@hellman.net http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ On Jun 29, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Toby, > > Yes...of course...you are right. :) > > I would say too, that reification is even more long-winded than the > example you have given! You don't have the actual statement "the sky > is blue" in your mark-up, so you need even more RDFa. (You only have > the statement "Mark says 'the sky is blue'".) > > But either way, you are right that the whole thing can be spelt out > longhand (as can lists). > > The only reason I mentioned it was because for a long time in RDFa we > had a much simpler construct based on occurrences of *nested* <meta> > and <link> properties. However, some browsers thought they were doing > us a favour by moving the <meta> and <link> elements out of the <body> > and into the <head>, which meant it was not possible to implement this > feature in JavaScript. (Obviously server-side RDFa parsers would have > had no problem with it.) > > As for lists, the obvious shorthand would be <ol>, <ul>, and <li>, but > it was not obvious what triples should be generated, so we left it. > I.e., your example uses the first/next/nil technique for collections, > but of course there is also the rdf:_1 technique for a list. It wasn't > immediately clear which would be the more useful -- or conformant -- > one to generate. > > Regards, > > Mark > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Toby Inkster<tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 13:30 +0100, Mark Birbeck wrote: >>> If we go back a step, RDFa was carefully designed so that it could >>> carry any combination of the RDF concepts in an HTML document. In >>> the >>> end we dropped reification and lists, because it didn't seem that >>> the >>> RDF community itself was clear on the future of those, but they are >>> both easily added back if the issues were to be resolved. >> >> RDF reification and lists do *work* in RDFa, they're just a bit of a >> pain to mark up. >> >> e.g. here's a reification: >> >> <div xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >> xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >> xmlns:db="http://dbpedia.org/resource/" >> typeof="rdf:Statement"> >> <span property="dc:creator">Mark Birkbeck</span> says that >> <span rel="rdf:subject" resource="[db:Sky]">the sky</span> >> <span rel="rdf:predicate" resource="http://dbpedia.org/property/color >> " >> >is</span> >> <span rel="rdf:object" resource="[db:Blue]">blue</span>. >> </div> >> >> And an example of a list can be found here: >> >> http://ontologi.es/rail/routes/gb/VTB1.xhtml >> >> -- >> Toby A Inkster >> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> >> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >> >> > > > > -- > Mark Birbeck, webBackplane > > mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com > > http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck > > webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number > 05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street, > London, EC2A 4RR) >
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2009 03:01:41 UTC