Welcome to WebHeadStart.org

Web Technologies

Sponsored By

WebHeadStart.org is currently in beta.
Please pardon our appearance as we work to provide you with the most comprehensive reference on today's web technologies.

Interested in advertising on WebHeadStart? Become an advertising partner today!

[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date]

ontology try and try again [was: Re: Viral fragment identity ecosystem]

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 16:05:54 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110408bf688cf6b886@[10.0.1.2]>
To: steve@xulux.com, www-html@w3.org

At 3:48 AM +0000 10/3/05, Steven Ellis wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think that document fragments, whether they be structurally or 
>conceptually coherent, need to be permitted formal expression in 
>XHTML. The simplest illustration of this may be xhtml microformats.
>
>Bracing microformats (and other fragments) using globally unique 
>identifiers would permit machine isolation and analysis, cross 
>referencing, consensus, scriptability, coalescence, and the 
>association of folksonomies with high resolution.
>
>Please consider an attribute capable of accepting an arbitrary 
>'unique concept / null concept' identifier.
>
><div identity="3C05DC85-DC34-4546-9210-02EC43188367" id="MyCard" 
>class="hCard">Content</div>
>
>In this case 3C05DC85-DC34-4546-9210-02EC43188367 may achieve 
>consensus as an hCard microformat reference.  Can you speculate how 
>this will scale? I thought it good enough to share.

You are right that @class has been coopted for something less than it
was designed to be.

The HTML WG is taking a second run at ontology with @role. Now at
least we have QNames where there is a presumption that any value you
give to @role has a public explanation somewhere, as opposed to the
private-code @class tokens.

Please consider @role as contemplated to be used in the

   Dynamic Accessible Web Content Roadmap
   http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/roadmap/ 

...as a contemporary effort to deploy a modicum of heredity and
similarity grouping of application fragments.  But intentional
and consensual, after the manner of Dublin Core, and not viral
like the lexicon of English.  [I think there's a place for each.]

Let us know <mailto:wai-xtech@w3.org> what you think.

Al

PS: again, as you have said, the markup-language textual fragment
that your parser can excise is related to a reusable pattern by
a generic/specific arm's length.  For more on how 'identity' varies according
to your varying concept of integrity or consistency-across-representations,
there is some history (ego acknowledged) to be dredged via

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Alists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Furi%2F+gilman+identity+integrity 
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:23:46 GMT
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | WebHeadStart.org © 2005 All Rights Reserved.