QArl: "One of the issues with TrackBack currently is that the RDF that TrackBack inserts into pages breaks XHTML validation. Now, whether you should care about this or not is up to you--the fact is, the RDF is valid, and if the rest of your document is valid, then really, you've met the goal of validation, if not the present reality."
QArl: Additional comments at A pox on validation's house
xover: This seems to beg the question, why haven't anyone written an XHTML Family Module DTD for including RDF in XHTML?
dajobe: see RDF in HTML analysis by Sean B. Palmer for an in depth discussion of the issues and approaches
QArl: Additional comments at A pox on validation's house
xover: This seems to beg the question, why haven't anyone written an XHTML Family Module DTD for including RDF in XHTML?
dajobe: see RDF in HTML analysis by Sean B. Palmer for an in depth discussion of the issues and approaches
AaronSw: The code is pretty small (15-20 lines) but it lets you do fun pythonic things like:
AaronSw: for x in channel[rss.items]: print x[rss.title], "(" + str(x[rss.link]) + ")"
AaronSw: You can also nest things like: work[dc.creator][dc.title]
AaronSw: Feedback, comments, patches, flames appreciated. me@aaronsw.com
DanC: hmm... reminds me of rdf-path discussions...
DanC: I saw a perl thingy like this one time... where was that...
AaronSw: for x in channel[rss.items]: print x[rss.title], "(" + str(x[rss.link]) + ")"
AaronSw: You can also nest things like: work[dc.creator][dc.title]
AaronSw: Feedback, comments, patches, flames appreciated. me@aaronsw.com
DanC: hmm... reminds me of rdf-path discussions...
DanC: I saw a perl thingy like this one time... where was that...
DanC: found this, again, prompted by Jos's note about automated reasoning the other day.
DanC: from their publications, this Native Type Theory looks interesting: "We use logical language in a way that is sensitive to computational meaning. For instance, when we say 9x : A: B(x), read as \we can nd an x of type A such that B(x),"
DanC: err... forall x.A: B(x) read as: we can find an x of type A such that B(x)
DanC: hm... having to type existentially quantified stuff seems constraining... cf lamport on why types in logic are a pain.
DanC: "Also unlike set theory, we will not assume the law of excluded middle," p. 6