Mark Baker has posted the first draft of RDF Forms:
“The Semantic Web is currently missing two key features of the hypermedia application model which are prevalent on the browser based Web; the ability to declare the intent to receive data for processing, and the ability to use data as arguments in the client-side construction of a URI. RDF Forms addresses these two needs in a manner similar to how HTML forms addresses them for the current Web.”
If I follow the spec correctly, then the following document is a data submission container for the W3C RDF Validator.
I made up URIs for the form parameters (required by RDF Forms), but the shortName attributes are as specified in the form. It would be useful to be able to express the legal options for the parameters.
I also indicated that the acceptedNamespace was the RDF namespace, I’m not sure whether this is actually legal as RDF Forms says that the element “SHOULD not be used with media types other than application/xml or text/xml”. I assumed this was an oversite however, and it is legal to use it with application/rdf+xml.
However the validator also accepts documents with embedded RDF. And there doesn’t seem to be a way to do that. I wouldn’t have thought that services accepting multiple document formats would be an usual case?
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rf="http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/rdfforms/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rf:Container rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ARPServlet">
<rf:acceptedMediaType>application/rdf+xml</rf:acceptedMediaType>
<rf:acceptedNamespace rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/URI" rf:shortName="URI"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/TRIPLES_AND_GRAPH" rf:shortName="TRIPLES_AND_GRAPH"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/FORMAT" rf:shortName="FORMAT"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/SAVE_DOT_FILE" rf:shortName="SAVE_DOT_FILE"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/NTRIPLES" rf:shortName="NTRIPLES"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/EMBEDDED_RDF" rf:shortName="EMBEDDED_RDF"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/SAVE_RDF" rf:shortName="SAVE_RDF"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/ANON_NODES_EMPTY" rf:shortName="ANON_NODES_EMPTY"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/NODE_COLOR" rf:shortName="NODE_COLOR"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/NODE_TEXT_COLOR" rf:shortName="NODE_TEXT_COLOR"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/EDGE_COLOR" rf:shortName="EDGE_COLOR"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/EDGE_TEXT_COLOR" rf:shortName="EDGE_TEXT_COLOR"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/FONT_SIZE" rf:shortName="FONT_SIZE"/>
<rf:acceptsField rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/param/ORIENTATION" rf:shortName="ORIENTATION"/>
</rf:Container>
</rdf:RDF>
Lost Boy 
Hey, thanks for picking up on this Leigh … A couple of comments.
The acceptedNamespace property is only for */xml, because people assume namespace dispatch with XML, rather than media type dispatch. It’s redundant everywhere else.
Re the property name URIs and existing services, there will always be a disconnect there because those services were designed with humans in mind and therefore not with disambiguating properties via URIs for machines. But RDF Forms are primarily for new services, since I don’t want to bend over backwards to accomodate services which don’t currently have enough information to be used for machine processing. You can add that information though, by creating your own URIs.