- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 09:45:57 +0300
- To: "ext Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, WWW TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2002-06-02 5:15, "ext Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com> wrote: > > This is also peripherally related to [nsMediaType-3]. I have published an > article which attempts to summarize years of discussions over the various > methods for associating RDF with HTML. > > http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/ > RDF in HTML: Approaches > Sean B. Palmer, 2002-06-02 > > It can also be considered a response to the TAG's subissue note [1], and as > input to the RDF Core WG's faq-html-compliance issue [2]. > > Comments and feedback etc. are welcome. Great summary, Sean. One approach that was missed, and which perhaps would be reasonably painless (given the import of the SW and RDF in addition to XHTML) would be to take an approach similar to 'script' but where XHTML defines a metadata element with content type ANY, and whether the application groks the metadata content or not is not an issue insofar as the XHTML DTD is concerned. This is very similar to the 'script' element except that metadata is required to be well-formed XML (see example below). Thus, the metadata encoding must still be well-formed XML, but the XHTML validation otherwise ignores it. If you need to validate the embedded metadata, then you either have to hack the XHTML DTD to change the ANY content to the root of the metadata model (e.g. rdf:RDF) or extract the metadata for validation. Either way, it's a minimal change to XHTML and in the case of RDF does not pose any extra work to validate since many RDF parsers already know how to extract the embedded RDF. I don't see that metadata need be allowed in the body, since one can make statements using XPath URIs about any content in the instance, and it increases the complexity of both the XHTML DTD as well as parsers needing to restrict per-element metadata to those restricted contexts. This also avoids any need to change browsers to prevent display of metadata content in the body. Thus: ... <!ELEMENT metadata (ANY)> <!ATTLIST metadata type CDATA #REQUIRED> ... <html ... xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <head> <title>My Document</title> <metadata type="application/rdf+xml"> <rdf:RDF> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/"> <dc:title>"W3C Homepage"</dc:title> <dc:creator> <ex:Person> <ex:firstname>John</ex:firstame> <ex:lastname>Doe</ex:lastname> </ex:Person> </dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </metadata> </head> ... Costs: * XHTML WG/W3C: add 'metadata' element to XHTML head (no need to update when new encodings come along -- they just have to be well formed XML. This change can be done once and for all. * Browsers: none, insofar as presentation is concerned. * RDF Users: none, if using parser able to extract/validate embedded RDF. I.e. pretty cheap overall. Of course, that said, I'm personally a strong advocate of the view that metadata has no business being embedded in a resource, and am most in favor of the link based solution. However, I support Sean's view that it is probably inevitable that we support both linking and embedding, and for the latter, I think the above would be an optimal solution (IMMHO). -- One final point about N3 and NTriples. I think it is *very* important that we not miss the fact that neither N3 nor NTriples are official, standardized representations for RDF. They are very useful, and I'm not saying one should always use RDF/XML in all contexts, but the reason why we have standards such as XML, XHTML, RDF, etc. is to maximize the benefit of interchange of information, and the more variant representations that Web and SW systems must support, the less portable and more expensive the endeavor. I would, thus, not like to see any N3 or NTriples used as primary representations for RDF that are interchanged by real systems. N3 and NTriples are not standard encodings for interchange. RDF/XML is. And that's what folks should be using in a global context. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 3 June 2002 02:42:50 UTC