- 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