W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2005

[HTML] Draft RDF/XML description of XHTML 2.0 link types

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:36:26 -0400
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Cc: steven@w3.org, em@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050509163626.GE30862@homer.w3.org>

[NEW] ACTION: DanBri help write an rdf schema for the additional xhtml2 namespace elements 

In discussing this with Ralph earlier, it emerged that we had 
differing understandings of what I'd said I'd do. I've gone ahead and 
done what I thought I was to do, which is to provide an RDFS (and OWL)
account of the link relationships defined in XHTML 2.0. This was 
done by hand from the last Editor's draft I could find in the XHTML WG 
homepage. I created a stand-alone RDF/XML document, which can in its 
current form be used as an indpendent RDF vocabulary. The addition of 
an xml:base attribute with a value of the XHTML2 namespace URI
(whatever that will be) could easily turn it into a set of claims about 
things in that namespace. The bulk of my work is agnostic about which 
namespace this vocab finally lives in (although there are plenty of 
issues to talk about there, eg. whether we'd find this schema encoded 
in RDF/A at the XHTML namespace, etc.).

Anyhow a first cut at the schema is in:



 - minimal creativity (this is not my vocab!)
 - inline issues + the resolutions I made (in XML comments for now)
 - all properties (and I read the definitions, noting some possible
    problems of interpretation) have a domain and range of Document
 - I included a sketchy class 'Document' to capture this
 - Some minimal use of OWL (inverseOf for 'next'/'prev'; FunctionalProperty
    for 'up', declaration of the vocab as an owl:Ontology)
 - not quite mechanically derrivable from 
   (largely because I subsetted some definitions; but also the OWL bits)
 - the vocabulary is in the OWL DL subset of OWL, according to 

Comments welcomed... This was < 2hrs work, so apologies for any errors.

Where are we going with this? Should we think about putting these
statements into RDF/A at the XHTML2.0 namespace URI? or content
negotiation? Or is there a case for this vocab evolving separately from
XHTML 2.0 core, eg. so that things like 'nofollow' (or a better
renaming!) could be included on a faster timescale? Does anyone have a 
dataset that could be reflected into this RDF vocabulary? (hmm 
maybe the W3C mail archives are a candidate?). 



ps. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/rdf-dev/purls/papers/sitemap/
was my previous (6+ years ago!) attempt at doing this in the 
context of RDF sitemaps. It'd be nice to get it finished off so that
these link types get a stable URI...

pps. context for this work, in http://www.w3.org/2005/03/03-swbp-minutes
and beyond the cryptic [action] summary, was this exchange:

stevenp: for example... need to specify the values for rel and the
values for property, e.g. copyright
... e.g. start is only sensible as a rel value and not a property value,
but contents could sensibly be both
... just for information that falls out of this approach. not in this
... just for information, this is something that falls out of this
approach. not in this draft

danbri: which namespace are these in?

stevenp: xhtml2 namespace

danbri: will there be an rdf schema that defines them?

stevenp: we would love help with this 

BTW I note that my current schema, which has each property as an 
OWL ObjectProperty with rdfs:range of Document, seems to contradict 
Steven's point above which says that some (eg. 'contents') might 
be textual values. Or I perhaps misread. Anyway, the schema could be 
amended to reflect any insights here, I think...
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 16:36:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:19 UTC