W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2008

Re: lcsh.info RDFa SKOS and content negotiation - use of RDF-style # IDs in RDFa?

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:59:24 +0200
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <op.uigbta2gsmjzpq@acer3010>

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:19:40 +0200, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> Using 'meaningful' labels for blank nodes is kind of cheating, though.

Can't imagine why. I believe strongly in ease of authoring, and meaningful  
names are therefore very useful.

> These labels aren't part of the RDF graph itself, so could be eliminated  
> on transmission. If you were to use _:1, _:2, etc., would your practice  
> be as attractive?

No. That's why I use meaningful names. I care as much about what they get  
reduced to in the graph as I do about which addresses a variable gets  
assigned to in a computer program.

I once knew a programmer who insisted on using abstract names for his  
variables on the grounds that you wouldn't get distracted by what the  
names meant. As you can imagine, his programs were horrible to read.

>> I have a nascent proposal to reserve a http scheme to make this easier  
>> to write:
>> 	<span about="pto:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waste_Land"  
>> property="dc:creator">T.S. Eliot</span>
>> but let's not argue about that now.
> That looks nice.

If I ever find enough energy, I might gird myself up to fight for the  
proposal, but for the time being I have resolved to take the coward's  
route and continue to use foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf, and fight other battles  
that I think have more chance of being won.

Best wishes,

Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 14:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:25 UTC