- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:04:03 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
A few years ago I made up a namespace for U.S. postal terms, so that I could automate production of mailing labels. Until now, the schema was scribbly little bits of N3. I just upgraded it to be human-readable: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps There are XHTML and RDF variants of it: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps.html http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps.rdf So if you ask cwm to look at it... $ python $swap/cwm.py http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps it will read the RDF/XML and tell you about http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps#MailingLocation a la... @prefix : <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix usps: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps#> . usps:MailingLocation a :Class; :label "Mailing Location". etc. You can also point your browser at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps#MailingLocation and it will highlight an item in a list of classes. The HTML representation uses transformation links in the GRDDL profile to expresses all of the formal meaning given in the RDF representation. Note that this represents a position on issue fragmentInXML-28 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#fragmentInXML-28 Namely: that an HTML document that says "#frag is a class" can be consistent with an html document that uses id="frag" on an ordinary element such as a list item, at least if the XHTML uses a profile that says what's going on. Norm, I intend for this to discharge my action on namespaceDocument-8, though now that I review records, it's phrased as: DanC: draft a section on using XHTML 1.x (not RDDL) with GRDDL and relax-ng [30 Aug 05] http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc#T18-10-52 I thought my action was to exhibit a namespace document that used ordinary XHTML 1.x markup, not RDDL, to express its formal meaning; and to validate the formal-meaning markup with relax-ng. I must admit I haven't even started on the relax-ng part, since I read... "... RELAX NG can almost, but not quite, do it." -- http://norman.walsh.name/2005/09/05/microformats Meanwhile, the document is completely XHTML 1.x DTD valid. It uses no terms from the RDDL namespace whatsoever. I thought the relationship between the namespace document and the code that produces mailing labels would be among the well-known RDDL purposes, but I didn't see one. The list of software purposes seems to be 404. I just used rdfs:seeAlso for that link. <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/usps> dc:title "An RDF Schema for United States Postal Addressing Standards"; :seeAlso <http://pe.usps.gov/cpim/ftp/pubs/Pub28/pub28.pdf>, <http://pe.usps.gov/cpim/ftp/pubs/Pub63/Pub63.pdf>, <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/jobieLabels.pl> . I can't tell from the records of our most recent discussion of namespaceDocument-8 http://www.w3.org/2005/09/22-tagmem-minutes.html#item03 whether a namespace document SHOULD or MAY or MUST use some rddl natures or purposes. And I'm still a little murky on the "draft a section" part of my action. Is what I have done sufficient for you to start on your action? NDW: follow-up on namespaceDocument-8, based on DanC's vanilla XHTML example [30 Aug 05] -- http://www.w3.org/2005/08/30-tagmem-irc#T18-11-44 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 21:04:11 UTC