W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:01:47 -0500
Message-Id: <DE427BEE-9441-4532-93D9-BE9D024E4F31@mit.edu>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Miles, AJ ((Alistair))" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, "Booth, David ((HP Software - Boston))" <dbooth@hp.com>

[... much useful discussion ...]

Thank you all for these very useful comments. I have added warnings  
in Sections 2 and 3 of the RDF/A Primer (2006-01-24) [1].

I would like to ask for some clarification on one issue so we can  
narrow down the source of the debate. I'm particularly worried about  
the implication that a URI with a # in it cannot be used to reference  
a non-information-resource entity if the containing URI (without a #)  
is an XHTML document.

Specifically, here's an alternative way to present the FOAF metadata  
in RDF/A:

	<head><title>Ben Adida's Page</title></head>
	<p about="#me">
		Welcome to my <a rel="foaf:homepage">homepage</a>.
		You can contact me at <span property="foaf:mbox">ben@mit.edu</span>.

which would yield the triples:

<#me> foaf:homepage <>.
<#me> foaf:mbox "ben@mit.edu".

Is this still wrong according to the TAG, because the <> URI resolves  
to an XHTML document and thus <#me> cannot be a foaf:person? That is  
what I understood from Alistair's early email. I want to point out  
that, if that is the case, then as Mark described, that is seriously  
problematic for RDF/A whose goal it is to describe the document that  
is actually carrying the RDF/A itself.

Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 19:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:47 UTC