W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > January 2013

Re: RDFa, RDF Collection Semantics and Temporal RDF

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 23:43:59 -0500
To: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <86BDFEA1-2656-4731-9C72-F78DF69828FD@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Jan 1, 2013, at 8:24 PM, "Adam Sobieski" <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:

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).

Comments on RDF features such as Containers and reification should be directed to rdf-comments@w3.org<mailto:rdf-comments@w3.org>. This group concerns itself with serializing RDF in HTML, not the core concepts.


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,

Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 04:44:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:50 UTC