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 21:04:35 -0700
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, ben@adida.net, michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
Message-Id: <200803052104.36444.gv@btucson.com>

Hi Ivan - sure, of course the tag is not the point - 

But, if assigning a URI to a statement in a standard way is not the way to 
address the statement, is there any way to do it?  And why not use a URI that 
refers to the start of the individual triple statement?

I read the post about using <u1 u2 u3> but I think that could get cumbersome 
quickly.  Naming things is just so fundamental to programming, language, 
abstract thinking, math etc it seems absurd to not be able to simply name a 
statement...

--G

On Wednesday 05 March 2008 10:55, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Golda,
> 
> I must apologize, my mail was not really clear. The issue is not 'id' or 
> 'name'. In RDFa, you can of course put any valid URI into the @about, 
> and that can be a relative URI within the document. The point is: that 
> will not generate things like:
> 
> #opinion1: #tucsonrodeo08 tdl:Post "the rodeo..."
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Golda Velez wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 6 March 2008 03:55:16 UTC

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