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

Re: XHTML and RDF discussion document

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:09:18 -0500
To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040225160917.GF12431@homer.w3.org>

* Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> [2004-02-25 15:39+0100]
> 
> At http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html is a discussion document
> about XHTML and RDF from the HTML working group.
> 
> The aim is to be able to generate RDF triples from XHTML, be GRDDL
> compatible, allow XHTML documents to validate, and offer authors the ability
> to add semantic information to their documents without the need for HTML to
> be continually extended with new semantic elements such as <person> or
> <number> etc.

Interesting work. I think it does compliment GRDDL. My reading of this
is that it, in effect, consists of a proposal for an alternate XML
encoding for RDF graphs (or perhaps, for some subset of RDF graphs).
This syntax is motivated by issues from the RDF-in-XHTML world, but the 
encoding could presumably be used in other contexts. The main features
of the syntax are (i) XML regularity: elements/attributes are
predicatable in advance; terms from misc RDF vocabs appear only as
content; (ii) extreme simplicity of parsing vs perceived expense of full
RDF.

Is that a fair characterisation of what you're trying to do here?

re subset, I guess this syntax doesn't deal with bNode-heavy graphs that 
have loops in, and I don't think (from quick skim) it handles RDF
datatyping. Is the intention to offer a complete encoding for arbitrary
RDF graphs or just capture a commonly useful subset?


Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:09:23 GMT

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