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 02:00:36 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0810011700y69e745a7pdbb80b7a501b9798@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>
PS. I don't have refs. at hand, but would refer you to Atom format, which
might have XHTML content. That content might contain extractable,
intentional statements, though the wrapper syntax might not always make it
obvious. In the same way, RDF literals may contain further information that
won't be visible through the "Representing Content in RDF" vocab. But pull
it out based on XHTML processing, apply the appropriate pipeline (unescape,
XSLT) , the fine-grained data is there.


2008/10/2 Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>

> 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.
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> --
> http://dannyayers.com
> ~
> http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 00:01:12 UTC

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