W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2008

Re: is this valid to make a named graph in RDFa?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:47:56 +0100
Message-ID: <47CE967C.6050203@w3.org>
To: Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com>
CC: semantic-web@w3.org, ben@adida.net, michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at

you ask:

  Is the use of RDFa in this way with id= properties functioning as the 
name of the assertion valid?

The answer is no:-(. The current RDFa spec:


does not make any reference to the 'id' attribute. Nor does it include 
means to generate named graphs (or reified statements, for that matter)


Golda Velez wrote:
> Hello all
> I had a conversation with Eric Neumann of the MIT Simile project, which I left 
> with the (possibly erroneous) impression that I could do this:  (if its 
> wrong, blame me and not Eric!  We talked in general terms, not this specific)
> <html xmlns:cal="http://www.w3.org/202/12/cal/ical#'
> 	xmlns:tld="/http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/2002/web-threads#>
> <span id="tucsonrodeo08" about="#tucsonrodeo08">	  
> 	<span property="cal:summary">
> 		bull riding, calf roping, barrel racing and other fun cowboy stuff
> 	</span>
> 	<span property="cal:dtstart" content="20080222T1300+0200">
> 		you missed it - it was Feb 22-25 2008
> 	</span>
> 	<span id="opinion1" property="tdl:Post">
> 		no animals were harmed in this rodeo
> 	</span>
> </span>
> <span about="#opinion1">
> 	<span id="opinion2" property="tdl:discusses">  
> 		I was at the rodeo 2/23/08 and did not see any animals harmed, though the 
> goat used in the kid section at 2PM was thrown down pretty hard a few times. 
> 		<!-- this observation itself could be more structured, but that's not the 
> point here -->
> 	</span>
> </span>
> </html>
> If we use some kind of modified n3 notation is this what we get?  (for the 
> discussion part)
> @prefix : <the address of the page containing the above>
> #opinion1: #tucsonrodeo08 tdl:Post "the rodeo..."
> #opinion2: #opinion1 tdl:discusses "I was at..."
> I realize that you could already use TDL notation to have a threaded 
> discussion, but it seems to me that by being able to refer precisely to a 
> specific RDF statement that then adds the ability to relate this discussion 
> to other structured data (the rodeo that occurred on Feb 23 at a specific 
> location).  
> The general idea of whether animals are hamed at rodeos can lead to endless 
> general discussion. But being able to tie specific instances to the 
> discussion in a machine-readable way may make the discussions more useful for 
> later analysis of the subject.  This same type of discussions tied to 
> specific events and testimony would be useful in the medical field and 
> others.  
> Does this make any sense at all?  Is the use of RDFa in this way with id= 
> properties functioning as the name of the assertion valid?
> thanks!
> --Golda


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 12:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:05 UTC