- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:42:59 -0400
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
[This message does not represent any opinions of my employer, nor of any
W3C groups with which I am affiliated.]
Mark Birbeck wrote on 03/19/2007 04:50:07 PM:
> RDFa is *not* an RDF serialisation syntax first, even thought it is a
> pretty good one. It originated in work by the XHTML Working Group, as
> an attempt to find a way to get more semantic information into XHTML
> documents, in such a way that it is easy for authors. Given that, why
> would I survey triple stores?
Hi Mark,
Throughout this debate you have kept sayiing that RDFa is not intended
originally to be an RDF serialization. Is
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2004-10-12-charter the most
up-to-date charter for the task force? If so, I am confused by your
contention, as the charter's mission statement says:
"""
The task of the RDF in XHTML Taskforce is to:
* State requirements for representing metadata in RDF within an XHTML
document
* Evaluate proposed solutions against those requirements.
* Recommend to the HTML WG and the SWBPD WG how to proceed to achieve
a common, widely accepted way of representing RDF metadata within an XHMTL
document.
"""
...which, to me at least, pretty clearly says that the taskforce's goal is
to serialize RDF metadata within XHTML. Note that the mission does not say
something to the effect of: "state requirements for interpreting the
semantics of XHTML documents", which seems to be your primary concern, if
I understand your repeated statements correctly.
In any case, count me in among the community members who find RDFa much
less useful if the default serialization is XMLLiterals. My personal use
cases for this space involve serializing RDF within (X)HTML, and while I
would prefer a W3C-endorsed solution, I would prefer a non-W3C solution
(eRDF) over a (to me) cumbersome W3C solution (RDFa with XMLLiteral as the
default).
Lee
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 22:43:10 UTC