- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:03:08 +0100
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
- Cc: connolly@w3.org
As discussed in today's RDF-in-XHTML taskforce call, I've made some progress towards my action on a Note describing the XHTML2 link types in RDF. See work-in-progress c/o: XHTML link types in RDF W3C Editor's Working Draft 2 August 2005 http://www.w3.org/2005/05/hrel/ $Id: Overview.html,v 1.52 2005/08/02 20:54:23 danbri Exp $ I'm fairly happy with the shape it's taking, although there are a number of issues still to address. I'd especially welcome feedback from the HTML WG; there are aspects of the current RDF design which may or may not capture the HTML group's intended semantics. Now the shell of the doc is in place, we can tweak the vocab itself fairly easily. The doc is OK per the HTML and CSS validators, and close to acceptable by the pubrules checker (I used the EARL Requirements spec as a template, and pubrules checker doesn't like all the <acronym> tags I've used...). Thanks to Dan Connolly in #swig IRC for taking a look at an earlier version. See http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/swig/2005-08-02#T20-56-25 or nearby. Dan noted that the class I invented (originally called 'Document', renamed today as 'InformationResource' following telecon and talking to Dan) seems in tension with the documents stated aim of "minimal innovation". I agree. So I'd particularly welcome feedback on that; specifically, what types of thing is it sensible to relate using these link types aka properties? Thanks for any feedback and suggestions. cheers, Dan
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 22:09:49 UTC