Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents

Stephane,
 
I by and large agree with Mark, however ...

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

Hm. Not so sure about this one. Let's look at the following example,
namespace declarations assumed to be done already, and the base URI is
"http://sw-app.org/"

1: <div about="#me" typeof="foaf:Person">
2:  <a rel="foaf:homepage" href="http://sw-app.org/about.html">my
homepage</a>
3: </div>
4: <div id="me">
5:  yada yada
6: </div>

What I am saying here is that the *part of the document (4-6)*, identified
by "http://sw-app.org/#me, is of type foaf:Person. Richard explained it much
more elegant a while ago [1]. I don't think this is what we want to express.

In any case, I'm gonna take this discussion into account for updates on [2].

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Dec/0157.html
[2] http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/#checklist-fragid

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:55:12 +0000
> To: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
> Cc: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley
> <danbri@danbri.org>
> Subject: Re: Hash URIs and RDFa documents
> Resent-From: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:56:50 +0000
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 2 February 2010 08:39:27 UTC