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: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:29:21 +0200
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, 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.uilue7v3smjzpq@acer3010>

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:53:37 +0200, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>> What I meant was, I am unsure of the value of being able to say that a  
>> primary topic has a temporal dimension, if you can't say that about  
>> anything else in RDF.
> There's a trick here. Choose your properties with care.
> The foaf:mbox property, for example, has built in temporal constraints.

Well, recognising that it has a temporal dimension still doesn't let you  
do anything about it.

> Even though we can't decorate RDF instance data with triple-by-triple  
> temporal annotations (and would we really want to?)

I think not, and that is why I think the temporal part of ttdb: doesn't  
answer sufficient a need.

We could of course introduce properties


just to be on the safe side.

Received on Monday, 6 October 2008 13:30:05 UTC

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