Re: [office-metadata] RDF datatypes

[John Madden <john.madden@mac.com>]

Elias,
On May 10, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Elias Torres wrote:

> John,
>
> There was a comment you addressed to me inside an XML comment  
> inside one of
> your attachments in your emails. sigh.
>
> <div class="foaf:Person" id="i" about="#i">
>     <div rel="foaf:office" xmlns:foo="bar">
>         <span rel="foaf:address">
>             <span property="foaf:street">32 Vassar Street</span><br />
>         </span>
>     </div>
> </div>
>
> Notice the rel in the div and the span. That's striping.
>
> <#i> a foaf:Person ;
>   foaf:office [
>       foaf:address [
>             foaf:street "32 Vassar Street" .
>       ]
>   ] .
>
> However, I don't think we have time do specify this. Or do we?
>

If we don't have time for this now, that's fine. The ability to  
generate blank nodes in the inline markup is not so important, since  
we can always do it in the freestanding rdf files. I also think that  
goes along with your preference to do the "heavy lifting" in the RDF  
files and use the inline markup generally for more lightweight stuff.


> BTW, I don't think we can use prefixed attribute names in ODFa  
> (metadata)
> 1.2. I believe you are using those. bad John.

Ahh. That's fine. I haven't looked at the 1.2 spec (my bad).


>
> Also, what did you mean in one of your emails when you said: I'm  
> mixing
> ODFa and RDFa?

What I meant was that I was using rel/rev/content in some places, and  
not sticking to property/data-value. I was doing this because I  
didn't have as good a handle on our proposal's inline syntax at that  
time and I was trying to mimic the whole of the freestanding rdf file  
by means of inline. So I used some rdfa-style constructs that I  
would, at this point, tend to avoid.

With a better understanding of where we are going now, I think I'd  
not try to put so much "stuff" inline, but would keep a lot of the  
more heavyweight stuff in a separate RDF file.

>
> -Elias
>