W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Review of Representing Content in RDF

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:54:28 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0810011654r771ac3e4w453dde8a6b233aed@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
2008/10/1 Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>

> Hi Danny,
> Danny Ayers schrieb:
>> 2008/10/1 Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>:
>  1. I think it would be good to mention GRDDL as a way to get a
>>>> finer-grained RDF representation of an XML document.
>>> Can you please explain, how you think GRDDL can be used "to get a
>>> finer-grained RDF representation of an XML document"?
>> To put it loosely, the spec in question treats content as a blob,
>> whereas GRDDL can allow you to extract statements embedded in the
>> content. A simple ref would be desirable, IMHO.
> There may be a misunderstaning. The purpose of cnt:XMLContent and
> "Representing Content in RDF" in general is not to extract RDF triples from
> markup content (like e.g. GRDDL or RDFa), but to represent (e.g. markup)
> content in an RDF vocabulary.

I understand, but because extraction of triples *may* be possible (e.g. with
GRDDL) I believe this fact should be noted somewhere in the spec - just one
sentence as appropriate, even just in an appendix.

 4. There is a DoctypeDecl class for DTDs.  What about other schema
>>> languages, such as XML Schema or Relax NG?   Maybe DTD needs to be
>>> treated
>>> specially because it can be embedded in the XML?
>> You cannot include a document type _declaration_ in an XMLLiteral, can
>> you?
>> So we have to treat this part of an XML document differently. XML Schema
>> uses attributes to reference external schemas. So that's no problem.
> Off the top of my head that sounds right. But all the same, it seems
> about time we should consider deprecating DTDs in these kind of
> circumstances. XSDs hurt the rest of that head I mentioned, but aren't
> difficult to use normatively being a W3C spec. Relax NG shema have a
> lot of benefits over either specification, it'd be good at least to
> see an informative version if feasible within the group member's
> available time.

Again, maybe a misunderstanding. It's not this Working Group providing a
> document type _definition_ for the RDF/XML serialization and not creating an
> informative version in XML Schema or Relax NG. It's people creating XML
> documents that contain a document type _declaration_ that we want to cover
> with the vocabulary defined in "Representing Content in RDF".

Ok, sorry, I think that was my misunderstanding.


Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 23:55:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:57 UTC