W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: reminder: RDF Core specs in Last Call

From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:20:25 +0100
Message-ID: <087401c2d42b$d74ac900$df13fea9@srx41p>
To: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>

> There is also a new accepted TAG issue on RDF in XHTML:
>   RDFinXHTML-35 : Syntax and semantics for embedding RDF in XHTML
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#RDFinXHTML-35
> I guess we should tell the TAG about the various pointers/ideas
> discussed here.

It looks like that has already happened.

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

> I'm sure I've seen that idea before and it looked interesting,
> although requires qnames which is a bit nasty - a new area for
> (X)HTML?

It seems to me that the qnames ship has already sailed, and there is no
going back. The next version of XML Events will probably feature qnames, and
the meta element has always had a qnamish aspect to it.

> Immediate thought - when the object of a triple is a URL, how can you
> distinguish that from a string that looks like a URL?
> i.e. a triple with a URL object (in this rdf/xml)
>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar> ex:homePage
>                      <http://purl.org/net/dajobe/> .
> versus triple with a string object
>    <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar> ex:homePage
>                      "http://purl.org/net/dajobe/" .

Do you mean, how do you distinguish between a URL and the resource it

> how about:
>   <meta name="ex:homePage">
>     <meta rdf:about="http://purl.org/net/dajobe/"/>
>   </meta>
>    <meta name="ex:homePage">http://purl.org/net/dajobe/</meta>

I am personally not yet convinced that this is the correct use of rdf:about.
It looks like a kludge to me.

> A further issue related to our use of <link> has been raised as a
> last call comment:
> with discussion of the link types.  Can the HTML WG accept/check that
> the ones in
> are appropriate to recommend? We mention meta, alternative.

Indeed, it should be 'alternate' not 'alternative'. 'Meta' is fine.

Best wishes,

Steven Pemberton
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 08:20:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:20 UTC