W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2003

Re: XHTML/RDF vocabulary documents: scenario from FOAF namespace

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:29:02 -0400
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306091729.02768.reagle@w3.org>

On Monday 09 June 2003 14:03, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Here's a scenario in which I mix RDF into an XHTML document. 

Awesome, I've added it to [1] and I've tried to assign it as evidence to 
various requirements.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html

In particular: 

>               1. Expressivity
>                    b. The solution MUST support arbitrary
>                       (rich) assertions. [FOAF]
>               2. Format
>                    a. The RDF MUST NOT have to be reformatted
>                       from RDF/XML [FOAF]
>               3. Scope
>                    b. The RDF MUST apply only to its containing
>                       document. [FOAF]


> I chose to embed the RDF (actually RDFS/OWL markup) in the body of the
> document, rather than the head, though I wasn't so bothered by that part
> of the decision.

Is my assessment with respect to scope correct? Is the RDF/XML about the 
resources it is within? (Or to ask a hairy question, is the RDF/XML about 
the URI that happened to, when resolved, yielded that particular resource?)

> What I like about this scenario is that the namespace document includes
> both human and machine readable documentation about the FOAF vocabulary.
> Currently, I do this but it means the document can't be DTD or XML Schema
> validated.

I don't follow. Do you mean it can't be validated as XHTML 1.0, or that 
somehow it's impossible to create your own composite DOCTYPE/DTD? (If so, 
how, I'm missing the connection as two why the human *and* machine readable 
description precipitates this.)
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 17:29:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:58 GMT