- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:25:59 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
> >Do you want me to proceed and write an RDF Schema for it? > Write away! Er...I predicted what you would say and wrote one (actually, I got bored and wrote one!). What do you think of it (assuming you just got it)? > Remember that "right away" is more important than being "way > right". Well, if right away is before you even ask me to do it...seriously it's always nice to be doing something of value. > I notice that rdf-interest (don't know about the *real* rdf group That is the real group. RDF is A Recomendation, and RDF Schema is close. RDF IG is just abou the only general RDF forum there is right now! > Unless there's a genuine *fatal flaw* in having a separate profile > resource, I can't see why we need to wait much. No flaw, it's just a bit hacky for now (I was about to send this to RDF IG):- Maybe it was a bit naive of me to suggest XHTML can be used as an RDF language...it looks as though RDF/XML are for data, and XHTML is for documents/language. If someone wants to work on the rather fuzzy area between documents and data, then great, but it's quite hard. Approaches: 1. Add RDF to XHTML 2. Link to RDF from XHTML 3. Use XHTML as RDF 4. Transform XHTML into RDF 1 doesn't work because it won't validate (yet!), 2 doesn't work because XLink isn't supported yet, 3 works to a very small extent, but with emphasis on the "small", and 4 is a hack for now because it uses "classes", but at least it works: http://www.w3.org/2000/06/webdata/xslt?xslfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeo ple%2FConnolly%2Fsmart-home.xsl&xmlfile=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FC onnolly%2F Tough call on what is the best approach...altohugh I would suggest a combination of 3 & 4 for now. Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/ "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Saturday, 25 November 2000 16:26:40 UTC