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

Re: let's specify meaning rather than processing

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:01:39 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1074002499.24753.110.camel@stratustier>
Le jeu 08/01/2004 ŗ 20:00, Dan Connolly a ťcrit :
> Regarding...
> 
> "An RDF processor trying to extract RDF statement from an XHTML document
> first checks ..."
> http://www.w3.org/2003/11/rdf-in-xhtml-proposal
> 
> I just found TimBL's essay that makes the point we were discussing
> on Tuesday:
> 
> "When defining a language, whenever possible specify directly the
> meaning rather than the sort of thing you would expect some software to
> do with it."
>   -- The essentials of a specification
>         This note is a little motherhood and apple pie about how a
>         specification should be couched so as to clearly add a new
>         well-defined piece to the technology.
>         
>          http://www.w3.org/1999/09/specification.html
> 

Thanks for the link! FWIW, the text that you quote from the proposal is
intended to be informative, in the same spirit as what's evoked in this
document:
"""Typical behaviors of an agent may be very useful to explain the
intent non-normatively."""

> I said I'd help revise the rdf-in-xhtml-proposal along those lines.
> I wonder if that essay gives you enough to get started. Let me
> know if it doesn't.

I'm not sure; I've put a new version of the document:
http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
trying to use a more declarative style, than procedural, but I may have
failed to do so as expected by you and Tim; if so, I suggest you show me
an example of what should be done based on this new version of the text.

> So I recommend putting the next draft someplace
> like
> 	http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec
> 
> (with links both ways to/from the present one).

Done

> And we need a catchy name; it's no fair using
> up the whole space of "RDF-in-XHTML Proposal"s.
> Something like koala or jeffry or harknerf.

Do you mean the title should be just "Koala" or something along
"Embedding RDF in XML and XHTML: the Koala proposal"?

In addition to the changes evoked above, I've also started to add the
generalization to XML, plus the definition of the RDF property Tim
requested to link an XML Namespace to an interpreter; let me know if you
think I've captured it adequately.

Dom
-- 
Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org


Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 09:01:41 GMT

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