- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 17:29:02 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Monday 09 June 2003 14:03, Dan Brickley wrote: > Here's a scenario in which I mix RDF into an XHTML document. Awesome, I've added it to [1] and I've tried to assign it as evidence to various requirements. [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/03/rdf-in-xml.html In particular: > 1. Expressivity > b. The solution MUST support arbitrary > (rich) assertions. [FOAF] > 2. Format > a. The RDF MUST NOT have to be reformatted > from RDF/XML [FOAF] > 3. Scope > b. The RDF MUST apply only to its containing > document. [FOAF] > I chose to embed the RDF (actually RDFS/OWL markup) in the body of the > document, rather than the head, though I wasn't so bothered by that part > of the decision. Is my assessment with respect to scope correct? Is the RDF/XML about the resources it is within? (Or to ask a hairy question, is the RDF/XML about the URI that happened to, when resolved, yielded that particular resource?) > What I like about this scenario is that the namespace document includes > both human and machine readable documentation about the FOAF vocabulary. > Currently, I do this but it means the document can't be DTD or XML Schema > validated. I don't follow. Do you mean it can't be validated as XHTML 1.0, or that somehow it's impossible to create your own composite DOCTYPE/DTD? (If so, how, I'm missing the connection as two why the human *and* machine readable description precipitates this.)
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 17:29:06 UTC