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 14:25:36 +0100
Message-ID: <088601c2d42c$903fb920$df13fea9@srx41p>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "HTML WG" <w3c-html-wg@w3.org>

From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> >Now, I can guess that you need yet another RDF syntax like you need a
> >in the head,
> Depends on what time frame you are thinking of.  We need to get done so a
> new syntax between now and  REC isn't on (precluded by charter).  But that
> doesn't mean we wouldn't encourage getting started.


> >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.
> :)  There have also been thoughts of a general mechanism which would allow
> folks to say "here's how to map my xml to rdf".

In general the HTML WG are fans of meta-level markup (no pun intended),
since it gives language designers and authors maximum flexibility in
language and document design, so I expect that we'd be all for it. That
still leaves the actual design (of RDF in XHTML) and it would be good to get
some agreement.

> Its a great shame Dave won't be there, but I'm strongly in favour of at
> least an informal meeting.  There isn't an RDFCore meeting - its turned
> into an semantic web architecture meeting.
> I'll put this on our telecon agenda for 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'd rather see this as future work than part of our current set of
> deliverables, so I don't think this need affect our last call schedule.



Steven Pemberton
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 08:25:45 UTC

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