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: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:40:14 -0700
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, ben@adida.net, michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at
Message-Id: <200803061240.15493.gv@btucson.com>

On Thursday 06 March 2008 2:06, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > 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?  
> 
> Well, this is only partially true. Yes, there is reification but the 
> syntax you used in your example is certainly not standard. The only 
> valid way would be to completely spell out the reified stuff. And the 
> other issues discussed in the thread (like named graphs) are not (yet?) 
> part of any standards.
> 
> There are some features that RDFa has not defined, ie, not defined to be 
> automatically generated, and reification is one of those. Simply put, 
> there was no real demand for it...

Oh - ok, consider this a bit of real demand - I am running RDFa on a few live 
sites, and about to implement it on two sites that have significant 
non-techie traffic (about 7000 humans daily on bTucson.com, another 2000 or 
so on bDallas.com) and I'd like to be able to do some form of reification, 
preferably simply using naming.  

I'll read up on TriX and stuff, the 'yet' clued me in to look for the working 
group - thanks!   http://www.w3.org/2004/03/trix/

>, ie, not defined to be 
> automatically generated

Um - automatically generated by what?

I didn't actually see any way at all to do reification using RDFa, maybe I am 
just being dense here. When I asked Mike Hausenblas about it he also 
indicated it wasn't part of the spec.  But I could have sworn Eric N. told me 
it was possible - I will try and talk to him again to see what I 
misunderstood.

Thanks!

--Golda

> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> >                                                     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
> >>
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 19:30:45 UTC

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