- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:10:44 +0100
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Taylor Cowan" <taylor_cowan@yahoo.com>, public-lod@w3.org, "SW-forum Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Bijan, >> An important difference between embedded RDF/XML and RDFa is that RDFa and >> the xhtml can use the same "literals". > > ? That seems true for RDF/XML as well. Hence parseType=Literal. You can also > hide literals, hence property attributes. I think what Taylor is describing, is something like this: <span property="foaf:name">Taylor Cowan</span> which reuses the data. This is very difficult to do using embedded RDF/XML. In RDF/XML, the two ways to express a predicate are via an element: <foaf:name>Taylor Cowan</foaf:name> or an attribute: <x foaf:name="Taylor Cowan" /> Since the first way would make the XHTML invalid (adding arbitrary elements is very difficult to do), the second is preferred, since HTML/XHTML processors should ignore attributes that they don't recognise. However, that would require a duplication of data: <span foaf:name="Taylor Cowan">Taylor Cowan</span> RDFa is therefore more efficient than RDF/XML embedded in HTML. (Hardly surprising, since as I point out in my other email, my first version of RDFa was exactly to embed RDF/XML.) >> In other words, the text viewed by the human, and the text stored as the >> literal object of a triple is the same. > > An option in RDF/XML. I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean that people can viewing the RDF/XML? Or do you mean that XHTML+RDF/XML is viewable? As I pointed out above, the problem is that this is not valid: <span> Welcome to the blog of <foaf:name>Taylor Cowan</foaf:name> </span> 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)
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 13:11:20 UTC