- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 10:31:19 -0500
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Le 17 janv. 2004, à 05:11, Tantek Çelik a écrit : > But very interesting nonetheless. Others have surmised that it would > be quite easy to represent XFN in RDF in addition to XHTML, and you > have demonstrated as much! I think it would not be difficult. (I still have my concerns about XFN ;) ) but yes in RDF would be quite easy. >> Tantek, XFN and XMDP are kinda cool... > > Thanks! IMHO they were merely obvious incremental efforts based on > HTML4.01 (with a little inspiration from last year's SXSW conference). XMDP yes, definitely, but would deserve a larger forum. XFN, not really. > I think the premise of transforming/translating simple user authored > meta data formats to RDF is a very sensible one. Simple user authored > meta data will tend to grow and spread rapidly on the Web because of > its ease of use, and the more meta data formats that it can be > automatically transformed/translated to, the better for everyone > working on making the Web more semantic. I completely agree with that. I think one thing that could be very useful is to have the "rel" attribute on any kind of element in XHTML 2.0. So you could add a poor semantics but still useful to element, it would help to leverage a bit the semantic Web and profiles would become an ontology for the "poor", but a lot easier. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 10:31:19 UTC