Re: XML.com 'Semantic Web: A Primer' article

Dear Mr. Brickley,
Most interesting to me in the article was the bit about extracting classes
for RDF in XHTML using XSLT. I dont really think that is what classes were
designed for, but never mind: it's a useful hack for now. However, if we
really want to make XHTML Semantic, we need a Semantic version (or module)
of/for XHTML, or else we just hack up a Namespaced, but unvalidatable
version especially for the task. We could than semantically markup the
document, and then XSLT transform it.
It's a shame we cant use an RDF XHTML hybrid, but that would be besides the
point, and make XHTML too complex.
What does everyone think?

P.S. Why don't we use semantic-web@w3.org for SW discussions?

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
----------------------------------------------------
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Mysterylights.com - http://www.mysterylights.com/
XHTML Modularization Resource - http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/modularization/
----------------------------------------------------
"The Internet; is that thing still around?" - Homer J. Simpson

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
To: Semantic-Web-a-go-go <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:16 PM
Subject: XML.com 'Semantic Web: A Primer' article (the SW and you ;-)


>
>
>
> An interesting piece from Edd Dumbill appeared on XML.com yesterday:
>
>
>   http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html  [[
>   The Semantic Web: A Primer
>   by Edd Dumbill
>   The question "What is the Semantic Web?" is being asked with increasing
>   frequency. While mainstream media is content with a high level view, XML
>   developers want to know more, and discover the substance behind the
>   vision.
>   ]]
>
>
> This strikes me as a useful article, both in terms of providing a
> discussion strawman on what 'Semantic Web' might mean in practical terms,
> as well as for surveying some key technologies, making the point that
> XHTML, XSLT and mainstream XML apps will be criticial tools for the SW.
>
> Rather than gabble on about what I think Semantic Web might mean
> I'm pretty curious to hear what folk on this list understand by the
> phrase. As Edd points out, we could do with some more accessible materials
> in this area. Some for example associate it with the
> logic/inference/AI/KR end of things (ie. the www-rdf-logic theme) others
> take a broader perspective, with the logic machinery being one set of
> tools that we need to bring to bear. While we shouldn't get too hung up on
> a slogan, I think it is important to have some discussion here on
> 'Semantic Web' since for many of us there is a larger goal, towards which
> RDF as-we-now-know-it is just a means to an end. If we're going to get to
> the Semantic Web (for some interpretation of that phrase), I know a lot
> of the work of getting there will be done participants (and lurkers) on
> this mailing list. I'm particularly keen to see 'SW' fleshed out in terms
> of real, buildable apps (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ has some nice
> examples) - ideally, the discussion that Edd's article initiates will help
> us characterise buildable SW projects. In our first year, much of the
> discussion here has focussed on RDF in itself, rather than on what we all
> hope to build on top of it. It's about time we balanced that with a little
> discussion of what we all want out of this SW business. My own
> (eg. [1]) answer is pretty simple: I want RDF because it seems a good way
> of getting the Web that was originally proposed. Wondering how the rest
> of you see it,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/thenandnow
>
> --
> mailto:danbri@w3.org
>
>

Received on Saturday, 4 November 2000 05:02:41 UTC