W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > December 2008

"Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML" TAG issue addressed by RDFa and GRDDL (RDFinHTML-35)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:56:34 -0600
To: public-tag-announce@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Cc: public-grddl-comments <public-grddl-comments@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-html-comments@w3.org, www-html <www-html@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <1228438594.6924.203.camel@pav.lan>

The TAG seeks community input on our recent decision:

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-35 on the basis the RDFa and GRDDL provide the
desired solution
-- http://www.w3.org/2008/11/13-tagmem-minutes#item07
  for reference: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/35

This issue was accepted Feb 2003 when we split a more general issue
about the meaning of mixed-namespace documents into parts.
  http://www.w3.org/2003/02/06-tag-summary#mixedNamespaceMeaning-13


Discussion of the RDFinHTML issue overlaps somewhat with
some related issues that remain open:

The use of fragments in HTML documents that contain RDF
overlaps with:

  ISSUE-28 fragmentInXML-28
  Use of fragment identifiers in XML
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/28

And as we discussed 27 March,
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2008/03/27-minutes#item03
the use of text/html is outside the scope
of the RDFa specification, and recent drafts of HTML 5
do not include the head/@profile attribute used in GRDDL.
This brings up:

  ISSUE-54 TagSoupIntegration-54
  Tag soup integration
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/54


The faithful-infoset issue postponed by the GRDDL WG
 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-faithful-infoset
is closely related to an open TAG issue:

 ISSUE-34 xmlFunctions-34
 XML Transformation and composability (e.g., XSLT,XInclude, Encryption)
 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/34

Another postponed GRDDL WG issue, issue-http-header-links
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/issues#issue-http-header-links
overlaps somewhat with discussion of Link: header proposals
under TAG issue-57
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57

It is the position of the TAG that RDFa and GRDDL provide
adequate mechanisms to embed RDF in web pages, despite some
related open issues. We're interested to know whether
members of the community agree, and if not, why not. Please
let us know in a message to www-tag@w3.org (the Reply-To
header field of this message directs replies there).



For reference:

Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL)
W3C Recommendation 11 September 2007
This Version:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-grddl-20070911/
Latest Version:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/



RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing
A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to
support RDF
W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008
This version:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014
Latest version:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax



p.s. tracker, this is ACTION-191

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 00:57:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 December 2008 00:57:14 GMT