Hi Micah,
Well spotted. :)
Before we finalised on @src acting like @about, it acted like
@resource/@href. And unfortunately there are one or two places in the
spec where an example is still in the old format. The mark-up _should_
be like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Albert_Ei
If I am reading the 21 Feb spec correctly, @src now can stand in for the
subject of a triple in the absence of @about. Can somebody set me
straight on how this squares with the leading example in section 5.3?
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Albert_Einstein";>
Albert Einstein
1879-03-14
http://
The RDFa Last Call spec [1] seems to restate all/most of the CURIE 1.0
[2] spec and not formally reference it. What is the relationship between
these two? Is the separate CURIE spec being abandoned? Is one "more
normative" than another?
Thanks, -m
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rdfa-synt
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Ben Adida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Manu Sporny wrote:
> > Yes, agreed. Can we get a general community mailing list in the next week?:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Others that we should consider for the future:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (discuss i
Shane McCarron wrote:
> I was attempting to implement a web service interface to the Perl
> extractor I wrote so I could test it using our test tools. However, I
> wanted my service to emit N3. I like N3. Its simple. Sadly, it does
> not seem as if N3 can be used by the automated tests we have
Hi Shane,
Great idea. So for the output format can be an inspiration Triplr [1].
As for my personal predilection I like N3 also for human reading and
RDF/XML in order to work with XSLT and XML-powered tools.
Cheers,
Simone
[1] http://triplr.org/how
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Shane McCa
I was attempting to implement a web service interface to the Perl
extractor I wrote so I could test it using our test tools. However, I
wanted my service to emit N3. I like N3. Its simple. Sadly, it does
not seem as if N3 can be used by the automated tests we have... so the
obvious questi
Manu Sporny wrote:
Yes, agreed. Can we get a general community mailing list in the next week?:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Others that we should consider for the future:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (discuss implementation details)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (discuss RDF vocabulary best practices)
I disagree with forkin
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I fully agree with the goals but, well... I am not sure why we
> should/would go out of W3C to achieve all this. We should explore the
> possibility to keep the community bound to W3C, too. We can look at the
> issue of
>
> - mailing lists (to set up extra mailings lists beyo
Finally something I can contribute to! It is like me watching cricket, I
don't really know all the rules and when it gets down to the details I feel
awash in an ocean... I have been reading all the details of syntax and
chaining and had no idea what I could add.
Anyway, I blog for SitePoint [1] a
And I am in Boston on the last week of March, too...
Ivan
Elias Torres wrote:
That's right Bob. I'm could walk to Beacon Hill if you need me to.
-Elias
On Mar 8, 2008, at 8:43 PM, Ben Adida wrote:
That is an excellent perspective.
Linked: http://rdfa.info/2008/03/09/rdfa-in-massachusetts
11 matches
Mail list logo
