- From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:27:37 +0200
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 22:27:33 UTC
Hi Ivan, hi all, 2010-08-25 13:40 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>: > http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/ContainersAndCollections good news – I also welcome collection/container support in RDFa! I have comments on the "possible questions" 2 and 3: 2. On containers: Why do we need a special syntax involving pseudo resources and container preprocessing at all? Wouldn't standard RDF already work? E.g. <li about="http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/isbn/9780262912423" typeof="bibo:Book"> <em property="dc:title">A Semantic Web Primer</em>, by <span rel="dc:creator" typeof="rdf:Seq"> <span property="rdf:li">Grigoris Antoniou</span> and <span property="rdf:li">Frank van Harmelen</span> </span> </li> – or, instead of rdf:_1, rdf:_2 – as the author prefers – would yield the desired result, as @typeof="rdf:Seq" also generates a bnode. For collections, i.e. linked lists, a special processing mode is, of course, needed – at least I can't come up with any better idea. 3. On @typeof vs. @resource: I have not checked possible side effects w.r.t. the spec, but I would consider @typeof more intuitive, as both @typeof in normal RDFa and @typeof in your "collection processing" mode generate bnodes. Just my 2 cents – cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
Received on Friday, 27 August 2010 22:27:33 UTC