[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Minutes Draft from the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee Secretary (File id: @@2540)
>(Originally, the committee anticipated
that XHTML 2.0
>would have considerable market acceptance.
Thus, there would have
>been an advantage to basing the contract
structural markup on XHTML 2.0.
>One of the members of the
Structural Markup subcommittee said that
>after adding to XHTML 2.0 the
markup needed for contracts, it was
>"barely recognizable as XHTML
2.0.")
>
Hello,
The seventh public Working Draft of XHTML 2.0 was published on 27 May 2005. Steve Pemberton gave an interesting
talk at http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/05-steven-xtech/ about the work, where he discusses its
relationship to the Semantic Web:
And furthermore, how do the existing semantics relate to
the
semantic web (i.e. to RDF), and how can you
integrate XHTML
into the semantic web (or RDF into
XHTML) without sending the
existing HTML community
screaming in the other direction?
What we have done is craftily mutated <meta> and
<link> so
that they look more or less the same
to the HTML author, but
now have a clear
relationship to RDF, and then generalised.
(emphasis
added)
The notion expressed in the minutes that
"after adding to XHTML 2.0 the markup needed for contracts, it was barely
recognizable as XHTML 2.0", is one certainly ignorant of the technologies
involved -- the design for metadata "solves
the problem of everyone asking for new elements in XHTML". Further the
W3C published a relevent paper on 15 May, Gleaning Resource Description from Dialects
of Markup Languages (GRDDL), "for getting RDF data out of XML and
XHTML documents using explicitly associated transformation algorithms, typically
represented in XSLT." It should also be noted the XHTML WG's
Forum is quite active and enthusiastic, so the report about
disenchantment with XHMTL2.0 seems odd to me. FWIW, the prospect that
any industry would willingly adopt an XML dialect created by OASIS
to represent browseable structured narrative documents, in the face of a
perfectly acceptable controlled evolutionary path from current W3
technologies, remains to this day highly questionable to me. That said, an
OASIS-sponsored RDF ontology for legal documents would definitely be useful
and appropriate now that the Requirements Document is published.
Ah well,
as Steve says, "It is going to last call shortly: we welcome your comments!"
Rock on!
John
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]