RE: RDFa, RDF Collection Semantics and Temporal RDF from Adam Sobieski on 2013-01-02 (public-rdfa@w3.org from January 2013)

From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 04:24:15 +0000
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
CC: "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SNT002-W67ED86C242BE56EDFECD65C5220@phx.gbl>

RDFa Working Group,
Gregg Kellogg,
 
Greetings. If RDF collections are archaic then there might be a need for one or more new ontologies for use across digital documents (http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-216/submission_12.pdf, http://code.google.com/p/collections-ontology/, http://purl.org/co, http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL/smil-timing.html#q49).
 
I disagree that reification is archaic. Reification can enhance RDFa expressiveness and there are syntactic possiblities, syntactic sugar, for reification with RDFa (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_model, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_rdfaindetail).

What is the status of the RDF API (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-api/) and of the RDFa API (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-api/)?


 
Kind regards,
 
Adam

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 04:24:43 UTC