W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2008

Re: RDF-EASE: RDFa in CSS

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:04:57 +0100
Message-ID: <495B7C09.6020804@w3.org>
To: giovanni.tummarello@deri.org, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
Hi Giovanni (and Toby, of course!)

my superficial reading of the draft suggests me that Rease is defined in
terms of RDFa. Ie, conceptually, an XHTML+Rease document (or even
XHTML+RDFa+Rease document) is transformed into XHTML+RDFa. Actually, a
way of implementing it (my RDFa implementor's mind starts working:-)
would be to add a pre-processor (like the hGRDDL idea of Ben) to an RDFa
processor and let the trickier aspects of RDFa be solved by an existing
processor.

Toby, is this the idea? If not, I believe it should be:-)

I have one technical comment, though. The CSS Working group has already
published a CSS3 Namespace Module:

http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-namespace/

which uses a slightly different syntax than Rease for a similar concept.
I think it would be way better to align Rease to this. One could expect
that CSS parsers of the future would include this namespace facility,
which might greatly facilitate the task of Rease implementers...

Ivan

Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> Hi Toby,
> 
>  i am trying to understand its potential use at high level.
> 
> While the idea has an appeal, i'd be inclined to say that while you
> might want to interchange CSS, fiddle with them or whatever ,the
> semantics of the outputted HTML is OTOH already decided by the logic
> of the application: output content and semantics are not two
> separated/ interchangable aspects.
> 
> If that's the case, then RDFa suffices as that and i'd be scared to
> propose yet another RDF serialization mechanism. But i might be
> disregarding some use case.. would you have some counterexamples where
> it is useful to have such extra layer of indirection between outputted
> content and its semantic specifications?
> 
> Of course it is as you say much easier than XSLT for RDFication
> purposes, so yes it could probably be very useful to hack RDFication
> scrapers for sites that do not embed RDFa.
> 
> So my suggestion (if the above is correct) would be to to market it as
> such, e.g. to clearly state that it is not meant to be used as a
> substitute for RDFa.
> 
> Giovanni
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com> wrote:
>> Oh, I like that idea. Nifty!
>>
>> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>>> Draft specification
>>> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
>>>
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2008 14:05:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:26 GMT