W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2004

RE: Renewed RDF/XHTML task force - first telecon

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:52:02 +0100
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "'Steven Pemberton'" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Message-ID: <002e01c47f13$81b140c0$6701a8c0@W100>

Hi Dan,

I've read the IRC log of the telecon, and here's a few comments:



1. Normative reference to RDF.

I've already been given a task by the WG to draw out the relationship
between our syntax and RDF, so don't worry about that. However, whilst we're
on the subject, I'd be interested to hear a bit more detail about the
comment that the examples "are a bit '98". That's probably because my
history with RDF is from that time, but I then moved on to other things
since it seemed to be moving so slowly ;).

Anyway, please feel completely free to make any comments you like that will
bring my understanding up-to-date, and in turn make the examples and prose
in the XHTML 2 spec better. One thing that stands out is that you seem to be
using FOAF for a lot of your examples, so we could easily change ours to
whatever the latest hip thing is ...



2. On RDF-Lite.

That wasn't a very good name, was it? Sorry!

When myself and Steven discussed a name for the syntax, we used RDF/XHTML to
show that it was another serialisation, like RDF/XML, RDF/N3 and so on.
However, we have also debated for a while now, as to whether we should be
proposing these two chapters as a standalone specification - which is where
the name RDF-Lite came in. (The logic behind a separate spec is so that
other XML languages could then incorporate all the metadata attributes for
use on their own elements. For example, SVG has a metadata element into
which RDF/XML is dumped, and EMMA also allows full RDF/XML, but of course
they will both suffer from the parsing difficulty that we were trying to
solve in XHTML.)

Anyway, the idea was that it was really *RDF/XML*-Lite - i.e., a simpler
version of the RDF/XML syntax, that could be validated - rather than
RDF-Lite - i.e., a less than full implementation of all the features of the
abstract model of RDF.



3. Is RDF/XHTML 100% of RDF?

In terms of RDF features that aren't implemented, I have to say that I
haven't had a chance to go back through RDF with a 'fine tooth comb' (anyone
know where the spacing goes in that expression?), and we've already
established that it's changed "since my day" ('98).


3a. rdf:XMLLiteral
However, I know for definite that I had a misunderstanding about XML
literals, in that I thought they existed in RDF/XML but NOT in the RDF
abstract syntax. I thought that it was just a parse type in RDF/XML which
told the processor how to interpret the mark-up, so that it didn't start
interpreting it as predicates. But I didn't realise that the abstract syntax
has a special datatype for XML literals.

I'm not quite sure how to resolve this, since I'm not sure if it's
legitimate for a processor to assume that any literal that contains a single
child node which is an element is actually of type XML literal. If it's not
OK to make that assumption then it's an extra thing for an author to have to
add. Perhaps we can start a separate discussion thread for this.


3b. rdf:nodeID
As to blank nodes and their identifiers, I'm not completely sure that we
need them in RDF/XHTML. And since they don't have any manifestation in the
abstract syntax I take it we're not obliged to accommodate this to get an
RDF star? However, feedback on this would be helpful too, since it won't
hurt to include it if it's important.



4. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS
So, just to re-cap:

* All examples gratefully received to help us get out of the nineties.
* Does datatype="rdf:XMLLiteral" have to be explicit, or is a processor
allowed
  to deduce it?
* Do we need to be able to name blank nodes?

Regards,

Mark



Mark Birbeck
CEO
x-port.net Ltd.

e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/

Download our XForms processor from
http://www.formsPlayer.com/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Dan Brickley
> Sent: 04 August 2004 15:37
> To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Renewed RDF/XHTML task force - first telecon
> 
> 
> 
> re-re-re-sending with correct spelling of
> public-swbp-wg@w3.org --- many apologies for the noise.
> 
> Dan
> 
> * Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2004-08-04 10:34-0400]
> > * Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2004-08-04 10:15-0400]
> > > 
> > > Brief summary of the meeting, which just wrapped up...
> > > 
> > > Agenda:
> > >  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Aug/att-00
00/2004-08-04-agenda.html__charset_ISO-8859-1
> > 
> > IRC transcript:
> >  http://www.w3.org/2004/08/04-swbp-irc
> 
> I forgot to list attendees:
> 
>  * Ralph Swick
>  * Ben Adida (chair)
>  * David Wood
>  * Tom Adams
>  * Nick Gibbins
>  * Dan Brickley (scribe)
>  * Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux
> 
> Dan
>  
> > ACTION: ralph to contact jjc regarding investigate of 
> >         expressiveness (full or partial) of HTML WG's proposal
> > ACTION: ben to review http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html
> > ACTION: danbri ask Mark whether he has an xslt parser for the new
notation 
> > ACTION: ben draft a template response 
> > 
> > RESOLVED: to use  public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf as primary forum for
> > discussion of this Task Force.
> > 
> > RESOLVED: internal 2 week target for reviews of
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-xhtml2-20040722/
> > 
> > Next meeting: expected in ~2 weeks, but not formally agreed.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Dan
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2004 19:52:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT