W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: reminder: RDF Core specs in Last Call

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:15:27 +0000
To: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, HTML WG <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <26037.1045145727@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


(Not really sure whether to continue all this crossposting, anyway)

>>>Steven Pemberton said:
> 
> From: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>

<snip/>

> There have been recent discussions about RDF in XHTML, for instance with
> Eric Miller, sparked off by http://www.dubinko.info/writing/meta/, and it is
> an agenda item at our coming FtF.

There is also a new accepted TAG issue on RDF in XHTML:

  RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35

I guess we should tell the TAG about the various pointers/ideas
discussed here.

> One approach that has been discussed is a DTD-friendly encoding of RDF in
> XHTML. For instance: make the <meta> element actually a carrier for RDF, by
> making <meta> contentful, allowing an rdf:about attribute on it, and in the
> absence of an 'about', making the default the parent element.
> 
> <warning class="strawman">
> 
> For instance, instead of
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
>   <ex:editor>
>     <rdf:Description>
>       <ex:homePage>
>         <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/">
>         </rdf:Description>
>       </ex:homePage>
>       <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
>     </rdf:Description>
>   </ex:editor>
>   <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> use
> 
> <meta rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar">
>     <meta name="dc:title">RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</meta>
>     <meta name="ex:editor">
>         <meta name="ex:fullName">Dave Beckett</meta>
>         <meta name="ex:homePage">http://purl.org/net/dajobe/</meta>
>     </meta>
> </meta>

I'm sure I've seen that idea before and it looked interesting,
although requires qnames which is a bit nasty - a new area for
(X)HTML? 

Immediate thought - when the object of a triple is a URL, how can you
distinguish that from a string that looks like a URL?

i.e. a triple with a URL object (in this rdf/xml)
   <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar> ex:homePage <http://purl.org/net/dajobe/> .
versus triple with a string object
   <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar> ex:homePage "http://purl.org/net/dajobe/" .

how about:
  <meta name="ex:homePage">
    <meta rdf:about="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/"/>
  </meta>

   <meta name="ex:homePage">http://purl.org/net/dajobe/</meta>

and the former is needed in this example.


> </warning>
> 
> Now, I can guess that you need yet another RDF syntax like you need a hole
> in the head, but the driving factor of DTD-friendliness seems to me
> reasonable, and the opportunity of having (an) RDF directly in HTML seems
> good for the potential adoption of RDF.

:)

> It would be good if we could discuss this at the coming Technical Plenary
> week; we had already pencilled in a meeting with you.
> 
>     a) When would you be available? We are meeting Thursday and Friday
>     b) Would you be willing to extend the last call deadline to after the TP
> week, so         we can take our discussions into account? (I realise you
> want to end before TP         so *you* can use the meeting to go to CR)

Sorry, I'm unlikely to be there.


A further issue related to our use of <link> has been raised as a
last call comment:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0221.html

with discussion of the link types.  Can the HTML WG accept/check that
the ones in
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-rdf-in-HTML
are appropriate to recommend? We mention meta, alternative.

Thanks

Dave
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 09:16:58 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:50 EDT