Re: Named Graphs in RDFa

Toby,

I think [1] this is a valuable contribution. However, I'm having
difficulties the design decision 5.2 understanding:

'No new attributes added to XHTML+RDFa 1.0. To markup graphs a new attribute
is required, but this document does not define what that attribute is
called. Instead the producer and consumer of an XHTML document must come to
a private agreement as to which attribute is used. Markup language
specifications that decide to adopt the techniques described in this
document may define such an attribute for usage in that particular
language.'

You rightly conclude that we very likely need a new attribute but then state
that 'this document does not define what that attribute is called'. Hm. I
think this is too much relying on a convergent market. I can't see how this
should scale.

Howsoever, I've updated [2] to keep track of this proposal. Let's see how it
evolves.

Keep up the good work!

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Dec/0104.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFa_vs_RDFXML

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Lower Dangan,
Galway, Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://sw-app.org/about.html


> From: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
> Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:16:45 +0000
> To: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Named Graphs in RDFa
> Resent-From: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:17:36 +0000
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This is an idea that Kjetil Kjernsmo and I have been looking at for a
> couple of weeks:
> 
> http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/rdfa4/spec
> 
> Essentially it allows you to divide the usual RDFa output into
> multiple named graphs.
> 
> What do people think? Is this useful? Are there better ways of
> accomplishing it?
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 07:43:50 UTC