- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:05:24 -0500
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>Dave Beckett wrote: >>... >>What? I've just noticed rdf:ID inside the XHTML bit. That's not >>going to be noticed by an RDF parser. It only deals with >><rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF/> blocks. > >That should not be. > >>We haven't spent a lot of time considering mixing these things like >>this. Sounds more like a web architecture issue. For the TAG. Ha ha. > >When you embed XHTML in SVG, you don't wrap the whole fragment in an ><html> element. I could list a variety of common embeddings and >you'll see that you seldom include the root element. (Schema in WSDL >is an exception, and does it as RDF does, but HTML in WSDL does not. > >The RDF specification should say specifically what an RDF processor >is looking for in a non-RDF document. I don't think that requirement makes sense. It would be dangerous to tell any RDF engine to draw any conclusions from embedded RDF, since the surrounding context might change the intended meaning. >I would propose that an rdf:Description should be a proper root for >an RDF fragment. Similarly, a fragment rooted in rdf:About or rdf:ID >should be interpreted as an abbreviated rdf:Description. > >I don't think it needs to be handled by the TAG. Other "how do I >embed X" issues are figured out just by the people defining the >languages. But RDF (and the languages built on it) is more than just a markup convention: it is supposed to be expressing propositional content to be used by mechanical inference processes. I don't think that these conventions are going to be able to handle the issues that arise here. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 15:13:46 UTC