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

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

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
Message-Id: <200803051044.07731.gv@btucson.com>

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

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