W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 23:09:18 -0700
Message-ID: <3CB1340E.1010204@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Williams, Stuart wrote:

> At last week's TAG telcon I took an action to explore the use of an RDF
> based approach for embedding machine readable information on RDDL documents
> instead of Xlink. 


I'd like to thank Stuart for all the spadework on this issue, which
I realize now that I didn't understand before.  I'm not sure that I
understand it now, but I'm going to suggest another approach based
on Stuart's work that I think comes out a little cleaner:

<div ID="schematron" class="resource">
  <h3>7.7 Schematron</h3>
       <p>A <a href="rddl.sch">Schematron Schema</a> for RDDL. </p>
  </div>

<rdf:description rdf:about="rddl.sch">
  <rddl:prose rdf:resource="#schematron" />
  <rddl:purpose
      rdf:resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation" />
  <rddl:nature
      rdf:resource="http://www.ascc.net/xml/schematron" />
  </rdf:description>

Note that the block of RDF isn't in the XHTML <div>; you could
put the </div> after the </rdf:description> but then the value
of the rddl:prose property ends up including the RDF block
in a disturbing kind of way... in fact the RDF block could also
be in the HTML header and this would work fine.  Or the XHTML
prose could appear as a <div> *inside* the RDF block... I don't
have in my head the RDF syntax for saying "the value of the
property is in XML amd it's contained *right here*"... but what
actually feels cleanest to me would be yet another approach
like so:

<div id="schematron" class="resource">
  <div id="schematron-desc" class="resource-desc">
   <h3>7.7 Schematron</h3>
     <p>A <a href="rddl.sch">Schematron Schema</a> for RDDL. </p>
    </div>
  <rdf:description rdf:about="rddl.sch">
    <rddl:prose rdf:resource="schematron-desc" />
    ... etc ...
    </rdf:description>
  </div>

...but there's *lots* of room for argument about these details.

I do think however that the way I've proposed structuring
the RDF description is the way to go.  And (not a surprise
when you think about it) it's easier to read & understand
than the XLink formulation.  -Tim
Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 02:07:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT