W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2008

Re: XHTML vocab updated

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:00:36 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0804060100m6a2918f8xe2d3bab8058b81a2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
fyi, not long ago I did a GRDDL profile which includes rel type handling
(and maps untyped links to dc:related, which I'm contemplating switching to
dc:references). I then discovered Kanzaki had already covered rel types. If
I remember correctly Kanzaki maps to existing well-known terms from DC etc,
I map to terms quasi-squatted in the XHTML namespace (plus n-ary relations
using atom:link)

http://purl.org/stuff/glink/
http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/metaprof

I guess I should update to use http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab terms


On 05/04/2008, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > My recollection of this was that it was done in the early days of the
> > joint work on RDFa, although I don't recall the intention being to
> > have a separate document. You'll see that Shane has added some RDFa
> > already to the vocab document, and I think it would be great to agree
> > upon the statements you've defined, and then to put those into the
> > vocab document, too.
> >
> >
> It was indeed from that era. Consequently it was based on whatever the
> XHTML 2.0 drafts had for link types. The /1999/xhtml/vocab doc currently
> says "This is a vocabulary collection utilized by XHTML Family modules and
> document types" - does that mean its membership-criteria could be broader?
> eg. if any link types were in XHTML1 but dropped, should we still document
> them in RDF? Can we reflect in stuff from the HTML5 eventually too?
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#linkTypes
>
> for example, http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#contact seems a useful
> relationship to have a name for.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
>  Regards,
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > 2008/4/4 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
> >
> >
> > >  Shane McCarron wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks to Roland, the reserved value vocabulary document at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab has been updated to be valid
> > > against the
> > > new DTD (typeof instead of instanceof).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >  Hi folks
> > >
> > >  Any thoughts on where http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ might fit in?
> > >
> > >  I began this during the old SWBPD WG in 2005, just prior to leaving
> > > W3C.
> > > It's something of an orphaned pre-draft since then.
> > >
> > >  It is also from the XHTML2 days. Takes no account of HTML5 or the
> > > changes
> > > around HTML in last 3 years... Basically it gives a simple RDF
> > > vocabulary
> > > for the HTML link types. At the time we were unsure what namespace URI
> > > to
> > > associate them with...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


-- 
http://dannyayers.com
~
http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 08:01:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:27 UTC