RDF in XHTML [was: Re: Authors describing what their URIs mean]

> Does anyone know *specifically* why it is not a valid document
> (sorry I can't seem to find that information)?

Yes, because RDF in (X)HTML does not conform to any grammar
specifically published by the W3C as a recommendation to this date
(unless you create a grammar yourself, a la XHTML Modularization [1]).

> There must be some way for authors to correctly descibe their
> web documents with RDF embedded in the documents.  The
> problem is not that this particular example fails validation, the
> problem is how to embedd RDF in a www document
> correctly.

Let's see... how many tools can extract RDF from HTML at the moment?
How many can scrape it from RDDL links, or the HTML <link/> element? I
think the answer varies between "none" and "very few". The main thing
that is holding us all back is the lack of validation: it is simply
next to impossible, unless you use the recent XHTML m12n
recommendation [1]. FWIW, I published a very simple module for Dublin
Core in XHTML ages ago [2]. Note that this might not be a valid XHTML
Module. I'll update it if anyone really wants me to.

Another idea is to simply link to the RDF file, either using a
HyperText link, or a document metadata profile giving an appropriate
link type.

As for best practices, getting the thing to display, just make sure
you use the shortened RDF syntax (using elements and attributes, no
content) for your embedded RDF.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization
[2] http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/modules/rdf/rdf.mod

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 06:52:55 UTC