W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Alertbox: Site map usability (fwd)

From: Phil Archer <phil.archer@icra.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:53:20 -0000
Message-ID: <009701c2b8ea$536dfb90$2df46251@PHILXP>
To: "Gary Frederick" <gary.frederick@jsoft.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Gary,

This is certainly very interesting - you seem to be addressing some of the
problems a little group I'm coordinating is looking at too, namely how to
lead a client to an RDF description that can then be applied to everything
else on the site.  HTTP's stateless nature means that, of course, images
within a web page wouldn't be covered by a description that is *about* the
page and so on.  This is a show-stopper as far as using RDF for rating and
filtering in the area of child-protection is concerned.

We're only just getting going but the ideas in my mind are that an rdf:about
element might be able to include wildcards and regular expressions.  Then
use an HTML Link element in each page on a site (presumably through
inclusion in a template) or in an HTTP response header, to point to the
site's RDF information.  A parser then uses the first description it finds
that matches the about string/regEx.  This is probably sheer heresy I know,
but without some sort of route through which one description can be applied
to multiple URIs, including those that don't exist at the time the
description is written, RDF is a poor replacement for PICS (which has enough
problems of its own!).

Another idea I want to explore (which may be unworkable but I want to know
it's unworkable before I give it up) is that, say, a film classification
board could lodge an RDF description of its various categories.  Streaming
media could then point to one of those limited number of classifications
which in turn would recognise the pointer as valid (through some sort of
DSig no doubt).  The descriptions would be cached just about everywhere
before long.  Sounds a bit like CC/PP device profiles doesn't it?

Banner ads cause no end of problems for PICS as well. The ability to write a
label  that covered *doubleclick.[com|net] would be SO useful if only such a
mechanism existed!

I don't want to clog up everyone's inboxes with this needlessly.  If this
kind of thing is  of interest to you/anyone, please let me know directly.

Phil.

Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer
Internet Content Rating Association
http://www.icra.org


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Frederick" <gary.frederick@jsoft.com>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Alertbox: Site map usability (fwd)


>
> danbri@w3.org wrote:
>
> ...
> > So Mozilla kinda does this for the currently viewed page, using HTML
LINK
> > elements in the HEAD of a document. But it only has the current
document's
> > point of view, not access to the rest of the sitemap. Having it (and IE,
> > Opera...) consume RDF sitemap for navigation support would be pretty
cool.
> >
> We are starting to add the link elements into some of our documentation.
> It would be nice if IE and others in addition to Mozilla did something
> with it.
>
> > Has anyone spent any time looking at this? (I'd expect folk working on
web
>
> Here is some drafty documentation
>    http://www.jsoft.com/ts/tools/HTML/links/Chapter1.html
> Turn on the Site Navigation Bar in a recent Mozilla
>    View->Show/Hide->Site Navigation Bar
> and click on the above url. The Top and Up don't have their link
> elements hooked up. That is an exercise for our students.
>
> Not site maps, but a step forward that may result in useful info.
>
>
> We would like to have some simple tools where we can describe the
> relationships in rdf and be able to generate the html link elements. It
> would be even nicer if we could also get the relationships for a page
> from the html link elements and have it feed back into rdf.
>
> It should be 'easy' to get rdf out of xhtml with link elements and then
> get link elements back out of the rdf. Any pointers to anyone's work on
> translating link elements into rdf and back?
>
> Gary
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 15:53:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT