- From: Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:44:06 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, ben@adida.net, michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
Hm. Too bad. What about using the old style <A NAME="statement_identifier"> </A> to wrap the statement in? Then "#statement_identifier" is a valid URI by standard addressing rules --G On Wednesday 05 March 2008 5:47, Ivan Herman wrote: > Golda, > > 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: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax > > does not make any reference to the 'id' attribute. Nor does it include > means to generate named graphs (or reified statements, for that matter) > > Ivan > > 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 > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Golda Velez 520-440-1420 http://goldavelez.com what I do: Tucson Superblog http://btucson.com Search software http://webglimpse.net Web hosting http://iwhome.com "Help organize the world - index your own corner of the web!"
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 17:34:53 UTC