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

Re: norm's RDDL action item

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:46:49 -0800
Message-ID: <3E1612D9.7050003@textuality.com>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Norman Walsh wrote:

> In closing, I observe somewhat unhelpfully that what we're talking
> about here is a vocabulary of about five or six things. It's so small
> that I'm confident we could explain any of the syntaxes to most web
> content managers in the space of a lunch break and they'd grok it well
> enough to start using it that afternoon.
> 
> I think we need to accept that they're all basically equivalent and
> pick one.
> 
> "So pick one, norm", I hear you say.
> 
> Ok. I pick Jonathan Bordan's straight-forward RDF implementation[5] of
> Tim Bray's original proposal[2].

What Norm said.  Frankly, I think that the fact that it's RDF doesn't 
help that much because as TBL has pointed out, the namespace that it's 
making assertions about doesn't show up in the RDF graph.  And since it 
would be easy to harvest RDF from any of the formats.  But Jonathan has 
certainly made the RDF-ness quite painless.

BTW, as to the problem of how do you decide the meaning/belief-status of 
non-HTML stuff embedded in XHTML.  I think it's easy; you define your 
vocabulary and provide a little normative piece of XSLT saying "run the 
XHTML through this and believe what comes out".  Once again, would 
probably be easy with any of the proposals.

<important>In view of this discussion, I think the TAG should recommend 
that the W3C recommend a standard canonical data format (along the lines 
discussed here) that SHOULD be used for the representations of resources 
which happen to be namespaces.  Feels like a real interoperability 
win.</important>

-Tim
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 17:46:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT