Re: Comments/Quibble on "Making Classes Accessible"

From: Al Gilman <>
> Somehow we need to a) address the general W3C language architecture
> through PF while still b) working the specfic case of capturing
> in ER.

So a joint ERT/PF movement then. I like the way that most of the
deliberations and products of the WAI Working Groups are
interconnected...and by design!

> Note: There are some architectural ideas expressed above, such as
> the idea that semantics does not include presentation, that metadata
> can be semantically distinguished from data in the absense of a schema,
> etc. that bear further investigation.  Ideally the way to conduct such
> examination is in the light of more concrete access-related scenarios
> (situations and the functions you need in those situation).

Yes. The points that I make are usually based upon my own experiences in
deling with whatever technology. I am pretty certain that "semantics don't
include presentation", but less certain that "metadata can be semantically
distinguished from data in the absense of a Schema", because that isn't what
I inferred. Explanation:-

RDF Schemas are schemas for reification of metadata
XML Schemas are schemas for content models and structuring of XML

The fact that they are both called Schemas is very confusing: they are very
separate entities indeed. RDF Schemas do not imply structuring (a great
liability that needs to be addressed by the RDFS Group soon), and XML
Schemas do not imply reification! RDF Schemas set out the usages of RDF in a
way, and are always refered to by namespace. This is not so for XML Schema.
There is no RDF system in the world today that I am aware of that requires
the use of both RDF and XML Schema, although I believe DanC was working out
the details of an XML Schema for RDF...
Because EDL is an intensely structured language, it will most likely require
both an RDF and XML Schema; and that is very ambitious, but necessary in
this case.

> With regard to a metadata module, Sean, have you reviewed the
> SMIL 2 metadata module?  Is that module something we could
> use in EDL?

Ugh, I've looked at a lot of stuff...I'll track it down, review it, and see
how it applies (if at all) to EDL.

> It would seem to be the "RDF in XHTML modularization" precedent
> that is furthest down the Recommendation track.

I think it is one of the closest. I have already created an XHTML module for
Dublin Core (to the delight of DC-Architecure I hope), and it can be used as
soon as modularization of XHTML goes to recommendation. To recap: it is at
CR soon, and according to the status should go to PR any time now (I'm
getting impatient!).
I'm not sure that mixing the amount of namespaces oft' required in RDF is a
good idea (i.e. it is very tricky to do) in m12n, and it may be that we have
to wait for months/years until the XML Schema version. Not that it matters
much: XML DTDs offer enough capability for now...

It's quite bewildering as I skip from technology to technology to see how
the support for Schemas waxes and wanes :-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 14:51:12 UTC