W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2006

Re: extensibility of role/class/property/rel Re: Security Markup

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:14:02 +0900
Message-Id: <E193C5E1-976C-4C73-870E-7B07C3DBDD40@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: XHTML-Liste <www-html@w3.org>


Le 22 août 06 à 06:32, Shane McCarron a écrit :
> Karl Dubost wrote:
>> It is not a *defined* mechanism.
>> The whole point of QNames is disambiguation, not interoperability.

> I maintain that the requirements for the interpretation of QName  
> namespaces and their associated taxonomies is beyond the scope of  
> XHTML.

ok different messages that the initial mail which has been sent.
[[[
Sure there is.  You can create any values you want for role, property,
rel: they are defined to be QNames. Just declare a namespace and do
whatever you want within that namespace.  Sort of the whole point of
QNames.  The values that are defined in the XHTML 2 draft are in the
XHTML namespace.
]]] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Aug/0137

Plus the statement in XHTML 2.0 itself

[[[
1.1.1. Design Aims

In designing XHTML 2, a number of design aims were kept in mind to  
help direct the design. These included:
[…]
* Integration with the Semantic Web: make XHTML2 amenable for  
processing with semantic web tools.
]]] -- XHTML 2.0 - Introduction
http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/introduction.html#s_intro
Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:04:34 GMT


So let's see what must be done and how to associate it to the work of  
XHTML so it gives benefits to the community as large and XHTML 2.0.

> It would be great if some group were to somehow instrument the  
> Internet so that people could define the semantics of their role /  
> property / whatever attributes in a machine interpretable way.   
> Sadly, the mechanism for this does not exist.  At the end of the  
> day, all you are doing is adding more and more layers of  
> abstraction - the taxonomy interpreter, whatever it is, still  
> requires arcane knowledge of *something* in order for the  
> interpretation to take place.

Do not forget the scope of the proposal which does not need "arcane  
knowledge of *something*" but a defined mechanism.

[[[
In a User Interface if a model was clearly, it would make it possible
for
	- User agent to display the definition of the property if requested
(accessibility, usability)
	- Authoring tool to display a menu with choices of values and their
definition when editing
	- Search engines to index content with help on definition when
someone is using the search engine.
]]]
-- [xhtml2] extending values for property from karl@w3.org on  
2006-08-17 (www-html-editor@w3.org from July to September 2006)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html-editor/2006JulSep/0090
Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:04:02 GMT

Let's take the Authoring Tool use case.
If a mechanism was well defined to access the values AND their  
definitions, an authoring tool could download dynamically a  
vocabulary containing the values and their meaning and *shows it* in  
the UI.

That would be very practical for the user who would have access to  
definition of vocabularies.
That would be very practical for the developer who would not have to  
rely on a hard coding of vocabularies, but on a generic mechanism to  
access information.


There is a policy for W3C Namespaces:

	URIs for W3C Namespaces
	http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri

The text imposes two requirements
[[[
In all Member and Team Submissions:

    1. Namespace URIs MUST be dereferenceable, and
    2. Namespace Documents MUST describe the relationship between the  
defining specification and the namespace URI
]]]

Namespace Documents says

[[[
3. Namespace Document

A Namespace Document describes the namespace, providing directly or  
by reference information for human and also, ideally, machine  
consumption. A Namespace Document is available for retrieval using a  
corresponding namespace URI.

When a namespace URI appears in a Recommendation Track document, the  
responsible group MUST publish a corresponding Namespace Document. In  
other contexts as well, groups SHOULD publish Namespace Documents.  
RDFS and/or OWL are used for RDF namespaces.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri#nsdoc


So nothing forbids the WG to recommend a [GRDDL][1] transformation  
for example to achieve consumption of a "Namespace Document" in an  
automated way by a user agent.
The XHTML 2.0 Specification could recommend vocabulary developers to  
do that for XHTML 2.0 benefits. There are certainly other possible  
suggestions, possibly even more practical, but one defined mechanisms  
would make the life easier for a lot of people.

And it would be even implementable already with XHTML 2.0 Namespace.
	http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/


Maybe one issue, in XHTML 2.0, the profile attribute has disappeared,
	<head profile="http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view">
So it means GRDDL works only on XHML 1.0 or XHTML 1.1 documents. To  
apply GRDDL


[1]: http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/grddl/


> If someone tells you otherwise, they are selling something.

unrelated.


PS: hope this discussion will be tracked in the issues list.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 04:14:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT