W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: RDF and mixed content

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:28:34 +0000
To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <7248.1037186914@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Paul Prescod said:

[moving the discussion to www-rdf-interest from elswhere]

> The mixed content issue was mostly a misunderstanding. It stems from the 
> following sources:
>   7. Eschew mixed content.
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/10/30/rdf-friendly.html?page=last

I think that is in terms of writing XML matching the RDF/XML Node/Arc
striping; mixed content really grates badly with that.

> It suggests instead of using inline mixed content, use a link to an 
> element with mixed content.

That's for some embedding thing.

What?  I've just noticed rdf:ID inside the XHTML bit.  That's not
going to be noticed by an RDF parser.  It only deals with
<rdf:RDF> <rdf:RDF/> blocks.  

We haven't spent a lot of time considering mixing these things like
this.  Sounds more like a web architecture issue.  For the TAG.  Ha ha.


> ... But that's water under the bridge, the new drafts seem better.


> Yes, that is progress. Also the handling of XML Literals is MUCH clearer 
> in that specification.
> That said, I see a new (to me) concept of forging a document with an 
> rdf-wrapper. I do not think that this is not necessary. Just as the 
> integer 5 does not have to be "wrapped" to be a value, the nodeset 
> corresponding to an XML literal should not have to be wrapped. It is 
> just a value. Or else you could think of them as graph nodes with 
> identity. Either model is better than forging a string context for data 
> that is necessarily already parsed by the time it is interpreted.

That particular form of words is something I commented on in the WG
myself.  There is no rdf-wrapper element, that is just an example of
how to compare XML literals using XML canonicalization.  If you could
write a comment on this to the www-rdf-comments list, the editors
should respond.

> > Maybe the examples in the new syntax draft, out today, might help
> > you?
> Yes!


Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 06:30:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC