Re: relational data views of XHTML via XSLT

SCENARIOS

On Thursday 29 May 2003 19:04, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I'm pretty much happy with the "don't embed; link"
> answer to RDF and HTML, but I've run into a
> few applications (geoURL, Creative Commons) that
> aren't going to pick up RDF on that basis.

And the present "trackback" stuff, which is actually RDF associated with 
*parts* of an HTML document.
  http://philringnalda.com/blog/2002/06/a_pox_on_validations_house.php

REQUIREMENTS

> Then I realized: expecting HTML authors to think
> at this level is silly; they're not going to write
> XPaths to relate RDF properties to their text.
> They're just going to copy-and-paste and then
> edit until it looks right on the screen. If we're
> lucky, they'll maybe validate when they think they're done.

Yes, this coincides with the current bias of:
  "Authoring, the solution MUST enable ...
  RDF authors to be copy an arbitrary serialization into an XHTML 
  document (hand authoring the RDF serialization in NOT a 
  requirement)"
  http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html#req-authoring

PROPOSAL

> What is perhaps realistic is to get the folks
> deploying the applications to write some XPath
> stuff... XSLT, actually.

To consider this proposal in light of requirements (these are not 
"judgments" about the requirements, merely asking if I understand it 
correctly in light of requirements):
1. Does this actually permit easy copy and paste? Does this proposal require 
a known document structure document for the XPath expressions to be valid 
across all documents? For instance, in CC, if the document SHOULD have a 
dc:author, then this value MUST appear elsewhere in the page. However, this 
might not be already present, or it might appear in different places for 
all of the pages a CC statement might be associated with?
  http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html#req-authoring
2. This proposal satisfies the "simple scenarios" regiments, but not the 
more complex one?
  http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html#req-expressivity

Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 16:22:52 UTC