W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2012

Re: semantics vs. document markup

From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:54:10 +0700
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <867h17ucm5.fsf@gray.siamics.net>
>>>>> Bob DuCharme <bob@snee.com> writes:

[…]

 > <application>Foo</application> in a DocBook document is something
 > that they'll understand.  (I don't think they'll understand
 > <docbook:application>Foo</docbook:application>, because the last I
 > checked there was no namespace declared for DocBook.  I saw that you
 > didn't include a declaration for the DocBook: prefix in your
 > example.)

	DocBook uses a namespace since 5.0 (published in 2009):

--cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html --
    All DocBook V5.0 elements are in the namespace
    http://docbook.org/ns/docbook.
--cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html --

	(Though I should've mentioned the version explicitly.)

	Curiously, [2] uses this namespace.

[2] http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954?supportItem=3

	Also, [1] mentions the DocBook DTD, which is no longer normative
	as of 5.0, as the latter relies on a RELAX NG grammar instead:

--cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html --
    In V5.0, DocBook has been rewritten as a native RELAX NG grammar
    (“An introduction to the RELAX NG schema language” [RNG-Intro] is an
    excellent introduction to the grammar).
--cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html --

	FWIW, it's my opinion that it was the aggregation of both the
	markup and grammar facilities within a single specification that
	has contributed to the de facto demise of SGML.

[1] http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954

 > So, doing it the DocBook way lets you take advantage of DocBook
 > software with a minimum of effort.

 > RDFa can still contribute a lot.  The DocBook schema is very
 > extensible, but once you extend it to accommodate RDFa you can add
 > any new properties you want without having to revise the schema.

	Agreed.

 > There's not much point in using RDFa to identify properties that are
 > already part of the DocBook schema,

	Isn't there?  My guess is that such a duplication will make the
	information easier to access by DocBook-unaware Semantic Web
	applications.

	Alternatively, there may be a preprocessing step to add the
	properties encoded as DocBook elements only to the resulting RDF
	graph.  (And a suitable GRDDL transformation seemingly may fit
	such a purpose.)

 > but RDFa is great for adding things that aren't already there.  I
 > wrote more about this at
 > http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954 .

	Thanks!

	However, won't the use of non-namespaced attributes be prone to
	name clashes, should the DocBook be revised?  Somehow, I'd
	prefer using, say, “rdfa:property” instead of “property”.

	Unfortunately, the RDFa is only really defined for the
	XHTML+RDFa variant of XHTML, thus I'd probably need to use GRDDL
	anyway.  A brief search on the Web for an existing
	transformation didn't reveal any, though.

	Also to consider:

--cut: http://norman.walsh.name/2009/09/22/RDFaForDocBook --
    Posted by Ed Davies on 22 Sep 2009 @ 07:30pm UTC #

    >you'd need a DocBook-specific tool to extract the metadata

    I'd rather not have to write new XSLT to handle every new
    document-type/metadata-format combination that comes along, which is
    probably why GRDDL never looked too attractive to me.  […]
--cut: http://norman.walsh.name/2009/09/22/RDFaForDocBook --

-- 
FSF associate member #7257
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 07:57:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:46 GMT