[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] Multiple content nodes representing on RDFsubject
Hi Bruce, the intention behind Svante's example was to show that there is no one-to-one relation between XML elements and RDF subjects. An RDF subject actually may be composed of several XML elements. This is at least the case if the subject is a text fragment. That's the reason why Svante proposed to add something like a <content> element that combines the individual <text:span> elements into a single RDF subject. I agree that in his example it would be valid to interpret the three <text:span> elements as individual subjects, but I don't think this is valid in all cases. If the meta data is for instance a description of some text (for instance for accessibility purposes), then you must not break the text into pieces, because this changes the meaning. Other cases are annotations that may be added to arbitrary text the user selects, and which may include paragraph breaks. And I'm sure there are other use cases where an RDF subject must consists of several XML elements. Please let me know if you would like to have more detailed examples for this, and I will provide them next year. I think we have to consider this, regardless whether the preferred solution is RDF/A or RDF/XML files in a package. Earlier in this thread you wrote > Note that there's no way to derive this statement from what you > presented above. All you are doing above in the XML is identifying the > node (as a *possible* subject). I personally think to have the possibility to add IDs (or similar attributes) to identify *possible* subjects is important, because this allows to add meta data to a document without touching the content.xml stream. That's why I personally think that we must have the possibility to assign meta data to subjects in the content.xml by IDs. Please note that this does not mean that we may not have something like RDF/A's inline attributes in addition, if we find use cases where they are advantageous or required (that's something we should discuss separately), but only that I think that RDF/A's inline attributes are not sufficient. If I did understand Elias correctly, then RDF/A includes the possibility to assign meta data using IDs. Best wishes for 2007! Michael Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Bruce D'Arcus wrote: > >> The literal "important" is a property of the resource identified by >> the URI <http://ex.net/Important>, which is in turn a property of the >> description of the content node. There is built-in indirection of >> sorts in the RDF model. > > E.g. the way you do it is to *use RDF*: > > <text:span xml:id="_foo1">This is an important and </text:span> > <text:span xml:id="_foo2">divvikult</text:span> > <text:span xml:id="_foo3"> text!</text:span> > > ... then: > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="content.xml#_foo1"> > <ex:status rdf:resource="http://ex.net/Important"/> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="content.xml#_foo2"> > <ex:status rdf:resource="http://ex.net/Important"/> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="content.xml#_foo3"> > <ex:status rdf:resource="http://ex.net/Important"/> > </rdf:Description> > > Three triples, about three separate resources. You really don't need any > complicated indirection beyond that (at least as I understand the > problem you presented). > > This is why I and others (like Florian) have consistently been asking in > these discussions: what is the subject you wish to describe? In this > case, it is three separate spans, each with their own (local) URI. That > they each have the same properties is irrelevant; they are three > different statements. > > Or I suppose (though I'd need to think on it some more) you could also > define a style and include in the style definition: > > meta:class="http://ex.net/ImportantParagraph" > > Bruce >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]