W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

Re: HTML in RDF

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 23:47:20 +0200
To: Phil Archer <phil.archer@icra.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-id: <016d01c47cc8$1e03b780$d359003e@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>

Yes, we have CSS and RDF mapping,

We  can  also go  css to xml and RDF and back again (I  think of it as
cheating...)

The reason we use it is to map css to implication inside presentation (pink
being feminine etc)
so in different media or for users with different access to presentation
(typically people with disabilities) we can cross over the implied meaning
into something that works for them

I am now working out (slowly) the interactivity model in RDF. Is anyone else
doing that?

By the way, although pictures may not work in RDF the implications and
meaning behind the picture, the relationship of the picture to other pieces
of content (this picture links to/illustrate/has text equivalent of some
other content)
all work nicely


Lisa
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Archer" <phil.archer@icra.org>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: HTML in RDF


>
> I agree that not everything can be put into RDF - bitmaps certainly and
HTML
> almost certainly being cases in point. But I'd be interested to learn if
> anyone has considered trying to define an RDF schema for CSS?
>
> (another) Phil.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Phil Dawes" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
> To: "Stephen Rhoads" <rhoadsnyc@mac.com>
> Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:20 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML in RDF
>
>
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > Stephen Rhoads writes:
> >  >
> >  > Has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps "RDF in HTML" is the
wrong
> approach, and that what is really needed is "HTML in RDF"?
> >  >
> >  > The idea would be to build an OWL ontology to describe the elements
and
> layout of HTML documents so that the images, text and other elements could
> be "annotated" (for lack of a more profound word) directly.
> >  >
> >  > Would certainly help to kickstart the adoption of the Semantic Web
> protocols.
> >
> > I might be missing something, but this sounds like a bad idea to
> > me. XML/HTML is good for documents because of its implicit
> > ordering. RDF doesnt have this, and so will require a lots of explicit
> > information to describe the order.
> >
> > Many people don't like RSS1.0 because of the RDF 'tax' it imposes on the
> > XML. Imagine what they'd say to the idea of replacing xml with lots of
> > RDF! Especially if the delivery format was RDF/XML :-)
> >
> > Whenever I have the 'everything in RDF' idea, I try to think of
> > e.g. bitmap images, and realise that some things will probably always
> > be held in a non-rdf format.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
Received on Saturday, 7 August 2004 21:48:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC