Re: [Proposal] ISSUE-42: How does RDFa deal with @src

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>> B.t.w., I realized yesterday evening (under the shower, the best place
>> for these things:-) that this is wrong.
> :)
>> The range of rdfs:seeAlso is
>> defined to be rdf:Resource by the RDF Semantics, ie, it should not be
>> used with a Literal as an object.
> Right. That's why I was wondering if rdfs:seeAlso was a better choice
> for @longdesc than dc:description, since @longdesc takes a URI. I'd
> forgotten about rdfs:seeAlso until I saw your post.
>> But there is also rdfs:comment, for
>> example, that could be used instead of rdfs:label, so the original
>> argument holds...
> Sure...I think you are right that there are better choices than
> rdfs:label. We just need to alight on one and go with it. (And I
> assume that your comment is a +1 for the idea that @alt should
> actually be represented in triples, even if we're not yet sure what
> triples?)

Actually, I am not convinced of that. I guess It is a question of
general approach: I'd somehow prefer, as an author, _to be in control_
over _all_ triples that are generated, and avoid any automatism. I may
put in the 'alt' tag into my HTML file for reasons of accessibility, for
example; I may _not_ want that information to appear in the triples.

As a simple example: if I use an HTML file for my foaf file, too, I may
have an image in that HTML file. As an HTML file I might put there an
alt text with a pretty uninformative text like "portrait photo for Ivan"
which is there so that screen readers would convey an information to a
blind reader that, in fact, this photo is without an further info and is
put there to make seeing people happy. While the photo reference would
go into the foaf file as a depiction, and that is fine, generating an
extra rdf:comment or rdf:label or anything else _automatically_ is a
side effect of the mechanism that I may not want at all.

Bottom line: no, I am not convinced.


> Regards,
> Mark


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 08:51:23 UTC