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

Re: reminder: RDF Core specs in Last Call

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:54:32 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213144449.030cc7c8@localhost>
To: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>

At 14:15 13/02/2003 +0100, Steven Pemberton wrote:

[...]


>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.

Excellent.


>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.

Interesting

[...]


>Now, I can guess that you need yet another RDF syntax like you need a hole
>in the head,

Depends on what time frame you are thinking of.  We need to get done so a 
new syntax between now and  REC isn't on (precluded by charter).  But that 
doesn't mean we wouldn't encourage getting started.

>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.

:)  There have also been thoughts of a general mechanism which would allow 
folks to say "here's how to map my xml to 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

Its a great shame Dave won't be there, but I'm strongly in favour of at 
least an informal meeting.  There isn't an RDFCore meeting - its turned 
into an semantic web architecture meeting.

I'll put this on our telecon agenda for 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'd rather see this as future work than part of our current set of 
deliverables, so I don't think this need affect our last call schedule.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 09:55:18 EST

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