- From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
- Date: 2012年1月04日 14:54:10 +0700
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <867h17ucm5.fsf@gray.siamics.net>
>>>>> Bob DuCharme <bob@snee.com> writes: [...] > <application>Foo</application> in a DocBook document is something > that they'll understand. (I don't think they'll understand > <docbook:application>Foo</docbook:application>, because the last I > checked there was no namespace declared for DocBook. I saw that you > didn't include a declaration for the DocBook: prefix in your > example.) DocBook uses a namespace since 5.0 (published in 2009): --cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html -- All DocBook V5.0 elements are in the namespace http://docbook.org/ns/docbook. --cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html -- (Though I should've mentioned the version explicitly.) Curiously, [2] uses this namespace. [2] http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954?supportItem=3 Also, [1] mentions the DocBook DTD, which is no longer normative as of 5.0, as the latter relies on a RELAX NG grammar instead: --cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html -- In V5.0, DocBook has been rewritten as a native RELAX NG grammar ("An introduction to the RELAX NG schema language" [RNG-Intro] is an excellent introduction to the grammar). --cut: http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch01.html -- FWIW, it's my opinion that it was the aggregation of both the markup and grammar facilities within a single specification that has contributed to the de facto demise of SGML. [1] http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954 > So, doing it the DocBook way lets you take advantage of DocBook > software with a minimum of effort. > RDFa can still contribute a lot. The DocBook schema is very > extensible, but once you extend it to accommodate RDFa you can add > any new properties you want without having to revise the schema. Agreed. > There's not much point in using RDFa to identify properties that are > already part of the DocBook schema, Isn't there? My guess is that such a duplication will make the information easier to access by DocBook-unaware Semantic Web applications. Alternatively, there may be a preprocessing step to add the properties encoded as DocBook elements only to the resulting RDF graph. (And a suitable GRDDL transformation seemingly may fit such a purpose.) > but RDFa is great for adding things that aren't already there. I > wrote more about this at > http://www.devx.com/semantic/Article/42543/1954 . Thanks! However, won't the use of non-namespaced attributes be prone to name clashes, should the DocBook be revised? Somehow, I'd prefer using, say, "rdfa:property" instead of "property". Unfortunately, the RDFa is only really defined for the XHTML+RDFa variant of XHTML, thus I'd probably need to use GRDDL anyway. A brief search on the Web for an existing transformation didn't reveal any, though. Also to consider: --cut: http://norman.walsh.name/2009/09/22/RDFaForDocBook -- Posted by Ed Davies on 22 Sep 2009 @ 07:30pm UTC # >you'd need a DocBook-specific tool to extract the metadata I'd rather not have to write new XSLT to handle every new document-type/metadata-format combination that comes along, which is probably why GRDDL never looked too attractive to me. [...] --cut: http://norman.walsh.name/2009/09/22/RDFaForDocBook -- -- FSF associate member #7257
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 07:57:47 UTC