Re: reminder: RDF Core specs in Last Call

From: "Dan Brickley" <>
> Per I understand this to
> be an appropriate list for getting the HTML WG's attention. Please
> pass this on to the WG member list if deemed appropriate. is the one to use.

> This is just a quick note to remind HTML folks that the
> RDF Core specs are in Last Call (for details see Brian McBride's
> message to the chairs list, copied into public space at
> ).


> We would be particularly interested in feedback from the HTML WG on
> the RDF syntax specification, and in particular draw attention to
> section 9 where we touch on the issue of embedding RDF within HTML
> documents (
> Our Last Call period ends on 21st February 2003. Any feedback the
> HTML WG could provide on this issue in particular would be greatly
> appreciated.

There have been recent discussions about RDF in XHTML, for instance with
Eric Miller, sparked off by, and it is
an agenda item at our coming FtF.

One approach that has been discussed is a DTD-friendly encoding of RDF in
XHTML. For instance: make the <meta> element actually a carrier for RDF, by
making <meta> contentful, allowing an rdf:about attribute on it, and in the
absence of an 'about', making the default the parent element.

<warning class="strawman">

For instance, instead of

<rdf:Description rdf:about="">
        <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
      <ex:fullName>Dave Beckett</ex:fullName>
  <dc:title>RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</dc:title>


<meta rdf:about="">
    <meta name="dc:title">RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)</meta>
    <meta name="ex:editor">
        <meta name="ex:fullName">Dave Beckett</meta>
        <meta name="ex:homePage"></meta>


Now, I can guess that you need yet another RDF syntax like you need a hole
in the head, but the driving factor of DTD-friendliness seems to me
reasonable, and the opportunity of having (an) RDF directly in HTML seems
good for the potential adoption of RDF.

It would be good if we could discuss this at the coming Technical Plenary
week; we had already pencilled in a meeting with you.

    a) When would you be available? We are meeting Thursday and Friday
    b) Would you be willing to extend the last call deadline to after the TP
week, so         we can take our discussions into account? (I realise you
want to end before TP         so *you* can use the meeting to go to CR)

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
For the HTML WG

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 08:15:22 UTC