Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents

Hi Stéphane,

As you imply, there is actually no need for an @id value. For some
reason many examples that people have created in the past have tried
to align @about and @id, but it really isn't necessary.

Whilst it doesn't hurt to have an @id though, my preference would be not to.

As things stand today it's unlikely that there would be a confusion,
but I don't know if you are familiar with @role (another W3C standard
which myself, Shane and Steven have been involved in), but with that
you really are making statements about an HTML element. I'm hoping
that the RDFa/@role story is properly fleshed out at some point, so I
think it would be good to try to keep the boundaries clear, ready for
this.

So I'd vote for your second option. :)

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)



On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Stephane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Imagine an RDFa document describing a person. The foaf:Document URI is <>
> and the foaf:Person URI is <#person> because you want to be able to
> distinguish between the two; also foaf:Document and foaf:Person are
> disjoint.
>
> <>        a foaf:Document .
> <#person> a foaf:Person .
> <> foaf:primaryTopic <#person> .
>
> If the document is describing an online account, it might have
> <>        a sioc:User .
> <#person> foaf:account <>.
>
> My concern is about the #person fragment with regard to the HTML document.
> If the page is only about one person, there might not be a tag with
> id="person" in the page. Is this a problem? Should I have a tag with such
> id, or, on the contrary, should I avoid this as to ensure the resource being
> described is not confused with the actual HTML tag contained in the page?
>
> cc'ing Dan since this message is related to his point #5 at
> http://danbri.org/words/2010/01/14/549
>
> regards,
> Stéphane.
>

Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 22:55:47 UTC