Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > > Thanks for this clarification. So is it fair to say that the ability > to have named bnodes is secondary? yes, I agree with that. I would not have sleepless nights over a missing [_:abc] constrution; the user could just use an id with an explicit URI instead. > If so, the use-case you describe > here is much easier. > > >> What I simply do not see at the moment is how I can use RDFa to generate >> something like: >> >> <> a:b [ q:r "yep" ]. >> >> Ie an unnamed and untyped BNode. There are lots of examples of using >> such constructs. > > This is definitely a common construct, and it can be achieved like this: > > <span rel="a:b"> > <span property="q:r">yep</span> > </span> > Oops. I was misled by the use case I had for collections. Right, that works. But what I would like to express is: [ a rdf:Seq; rdf:_1 [ q:r "yep" ]; rdf:_2 [ s:t "yup" ] ] what is the solution for that? We _could_ say, of course, that RDFa does _not_ have a construction for that, and move on. Which is o.k. for rdf:Seq, because that can be encoded directly without too much trouble, but becomes a royal pain if what I want to express is: <> abc:def ([q:r "yep"] [s:t "yup]) Ivan > Regards, > > Mark > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 10:02:46 UTC