W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2011

Re: semantics vs. document markup

From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 10:30:17 +0700
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <86fwg1bepi.fsf@gray.siamics.net>
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:

    Looks like that the first paragraph of the message I've sent has got
    mangled away.  (I vaguely recall that the inn-workers@ mailing list
    had a similar or the same problem with the message bodies starting
    with whitespace.  IIRC, one of the folks there attributed to
    Ecartis, and ISTR that it has disappeared after they've switched to
    Mailman.)

    The paragraph was:

	I'm curious, given that with RDFa and the like I can easily
	introduce a “resource”, described within the RDF framework and
	using the vocabularies of my choice, why would I prefer, e. g.,
	<docbook:application>Foo</docbook:application> in my DocBook XML
	document over something along the lines of the following?

 > <docbook:phrase
 >   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 >   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 >   xmlns:foo="http://example.org/classes/"
 >   about="http://gnuplot.info/"
 >   property="dc:title"
 >   ><docbook:phrase
 >      property="rdf:type"
 >      resource="foo:SoftwareApplication"
 >      />Gnuplot</docbook:phrase>

 > (Sans that it's more verbose, and that DocBook's ‘phrase’
 > doesn't allow for ‘about’, etc.)

 > TIA.  And HNY.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2011 03:31:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:26 UTC