- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:09:18 -0500
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
* Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> [2004-02-25 15:39+0100] > > At http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html is a discussion document > about XHTML and RDF from the HTML working group. > > The aim is to be able to generate RDF triples from XHTML, be GRDDL > compatible, allow XHTML documents to validate, and offer authors the ability > to add semantic information to their documents without the need for HTML to > be continually extended with new semantic elements such as <person> or > <number> etc. Interesting work. I think it does compliment GRDDL. My reading of this is that it, in effect, consists of a proposal for an alternate XML encoding for RDF graphs (or perhaps, for some subset of RDF graphs). This syntax is motivated by issues from the RDF-in-XHTML world, but the encoding could presumably be used in other contexts. The main features of the syntax are (i) XML regularity: elements/attributes are predicatable in advance; terms from misc RDF vocabs appear only as content; (ii) extreme simplicity of parsing vs perceived expense of full RDF. Is that a fair characterisation of what you're trying to do here? re subset, I guess this syntax doesn't deal with bNode-heavy graphs that have loops in, and I don't think (from quick skim) it handles RDF datatyping. Is the intention to offer a complete encoding for arbitrary RDF graphs or just capture a commonly useful subset? Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 11:09:23 UTC