Re: Can RDFa be used on XML: pharma information
At 10:48 PM 6/23/2009 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >I see that the 2008 draft > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/rdfa-overview >says > "RDFa itself is intended to be a technique that allows for adding metadata to > any (XML) markup document, including SMIL, RSS, SVG, MathML, etc. Note, > however, that in the current state, RDFa is being defined only for the > (X)HTML family of languages." The RDFa specification was designed with the intent that other languages than XHTML could take advantage of RDFa markup. (The terminology "host language" was used in some drafts to signal this direction.) The charter under which the group was operating was specific to XHTML, thus the wording in the W3C Recommendation. >So I think I will go ahead and add some RDFa markup to the >XML, By all means, reuse the RDFa vocabulary if it seems appropriate for your application.
Re: [semweb-lifesci]
At 05:53 PM 11/12/2007 +0100, Wacek Kusnierczyk wrote: >To the maintainers of this list: consider configuring the list so that >messages sent to it have a prefix like [semweb-lifesci] automatically added to >the subject line, as it is often the practice with other lists. It helps >filtering, sorting, and maintaining the inbox. Our Systems Team has fielded this request many times. Please see "Subject tagging for W3C lists" [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/Mail/subject-tagging Note, in particular, "All messages distributed by our mailing lists are sent with a List-Id header identifying the list, e.g. for www-html: List-Id: This is the standard way to identify a mailing list, per RFC 2919."
Re: HCLS meeting record 2 Aug 2007
At 06:35 PM 8/6/2007 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>http://www.w3.org/2007/08/02-hcls-minutes
...
> hl7 is a member, and GE is a member of HL7,
>
> does it make GE a member of W3C?
no
"Membership is open to other organizations that themselves have
members ("membership organizations"). In this case, the benefits
of W3C Membership generally only extend to the staff and officers
of those organizations. Benefits do not flow through to the
membership organization's own members."
-- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership-faq#memberOrg
modelling controlled vocabularies [was: Re: CANCELLED Oct 26 Teleconference Agenda]
At 11:26 AM 10/26/2006 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: >I'm not 100% certain the action item is related to this, but during the F2F I >had asked the Interest Group for opinions on the various ways of modelling >'controlled values' for a property: There is some material relevant to this question in: Representing Specified Values in OWL: "value partitions" and "value sets" W3C Working Group Note 17 May 2005 http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-specified-values
Re: [Moderator Action (size limit exceeded)] WWW 2006 Semantics for HCLS Tutorial Slides
At 04:31 PM 6/8/2006 +, Kashyap, Vipul wrote: >The tutorial slides are attached with this e-mail. Vipul, once again the attachment exceeds the size that this list permits. If the HCLSIG participants all wish to receive large attachments from the list then the IG chairs may send a request to have the size limit increased. I continue to strongly recommend that large documents be mailed to www-archive@w3.org then cite (only) the uri of the archived message from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/ in a new message to HCLSIG.
sending large email attachments
Several folk have attempted to send large attachments (variously .ZIP files, huge .XLS files, .PDF files) to this distribution list. While we could increase the permitted attachment size if folk in the IG really want these files in your mailbox, another alternative is available: The distribution list www-archive@w3.org permits much larger attachments. The primary purpose of www-archive is to serve as a URI-generator for any Web-related content you care to send in mail. You can send your large files there and then retrieve the URI for the attachment, which you can then cite in mail to public-semweb-archive. This method allows those who want to retrieve the file to do so and not fill the mailboxes of those who may not be immediately interested. -Ralph
RE: GRDDL
At 12:27 PM 2/17/2006 -0500, Xiaoshu Wang wrote: >But at the current state, I would prefer GRDDL to RDF/A. The reason is that >using RDF/A would break the validity of X/HTML document. yes, for current X/HTML DTDs. > Unless W3C goes to >the miles to add the RDF/A support, which is exactly what the HTML Working Group has been working on. This work is part of the XHTML2 working drafts [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050527/mod-meta.html#s_metamodule > using RDF/A means writing invalid-HTML >documents. But from the point of ease of use, RDF/A is a winer. As I said >before, XSLT, required by the GRDDL, is quite complex, it is not for the >faint of heart. One obvious deployment path for RDF/A (in XHTML2) is to use GRDDL. GRDDL and RDF/A thus complement each other. An XHTML2 document could declare the GRDDL profile and be recognized by a GRDDL-aware processor with built-in recognition of the RDF/A transformation URI or could use a generic GRDDL processor that actually dereferences the RDF/A transformation URI. So, an RDF/A transform is but one of the many transforms that would be available to a GRDDL processor. If (when) XHTML2 becomes widely deployed, GRDDL processors could recognize the RDF/A transformation URI natively and optimize that case. It's a good synergy.
