- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:29:52 -0400
- To: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> From: Ben Adida > . . . > Note that I have *not* addressed Alistair's comment that a XHTML > fragment cannot also be a physical resource. Like Mark, Jeremy, and > Pat, I believe an XHTML fragment *can* also be a camera or a person. > I'm sure we'll face opposition on this problem, but this goes to the > core of whether XHTML can be a first-class serialization of RDF. I could not find a definition of the shutr:takenWith property. Did I miss it? Is it there somewhere? In any case, as I noted earlier[6], the contentious issue that you mention does not arise if the range of shutr:takenWith is intended to be a document (or document fragment) that *describes* a camera, which is how you have used it in the primer. This is what I called the "Shadow-Ontology" approach in [5]. Thus, I don't think the issue arises in the current document. References [5] Shadow-Ontology approach to indirect identification: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0171 [6] DBooth comments on RDFa primer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0021 David Booth
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 15:32:42 UTC