RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

Hi Ben, 

I think that, because no element with the id attribute value "me" is actually present in the document, then current specifications [3,4] do not allow any conclusions about the nature of <#me> to be drawn from the content-type of the document.

As I understand it, the TAG position is that, if an element with id "me" is present in the document, then:

<#me> rdf:type ???:XMLElement.

... follows (is implied? is entailed?), because ...

>From [3]: 'The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary resource.'

>From [4]: 

  '... fragment
   identifiers for XHTML documents designate the element with the
   corresponding ID attribute value ...'
 
(I use '???:' above because I'm not aware that anyone has actually declared the class of 'XML elements'.) 

Then if FOAF were to declare:

foaf:Person owl:disjointWith ???:XMLElement.

... this can lead to (implies? entails?) an 'inconsistency' (is that the same thing as a 'contradiction'?)

But, if I have understood correctly, Pat argues [5,6] that this type of 'inconsistency', even if it were to arise, would not actually cause any problems, i.e. is not at all harmful in any way, and is in fact very useful.

Please note my position given at [7]: 'I support publication of this document as a Working Draft'. I do not think the publication of RDF/A as Working Draft should be delayed because of this particular discussion thread.

Al.

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#media-type-fragid
[4] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3236.txt
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0152.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0153.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html

> [... much useful discussion ...]
> 
> Thank you all for these very useful comments. I have added warnings  
> in Sections 2 and 3 of the RDF/A Primer (2006-01-24) [1].
> 
> I would like to ask for some clarification on one issue so we can  
> narrow down the source of the debate. I'm particularly worried about  
> the implication that a URI with a # in it cannot be used to 
> reference  
> a non-information-resource entity if the containing URI 
> (without a #)  
> is an XHTML document.
> 
> Specifically, here's an alternative way to present the FOAF metadata  
> in RDF/A:
> 
> =========
> <html>
> 	<head><title>Ben Adida's Page</title></head>
> 	<body>
> 	<p about="#me">
> 		Welcome to my <a rel="foaf:homepage">homepage</a>.
> 		You can contact me at <span 
> property="foaf:mbox">ben@mit.edu</span>.
> 	</p>
> 	</body>
> </html>
> =========
> 
> which would yield the triples:
> 
> <#me> foaf:homepage <>.
> <#me> foaf:mbox "ben@mit.edu".
> 
> Is this still wrong according to the TAG, because the <> URI 
> resolves  
> to an XHTML document and thus <#me> cannot be a foaf:person? 
> That is  
> what I understood from Alistair's early email. I want to point out  
> that, if that is the case, then as Mark described, that is seriously  
> problematic for RDF/A whose goal it is to describe the document that  
> is actually carrying the RDF/A itself.

Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 17:32:18 UTC