W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2005

[HTML]

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:03:08 +0100
Message-ID: <42EFDF8C.1060903@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:45 UTC