W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Multiple GRDDL results in a single transform??? GRDDL and Named Graphs

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <47987974.3070000@hpl.hp.com>
To: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "public-grddl-wg@w3.org" <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>

Phil Archer wrote:
> I think I finally get it... (about time too).
> Sorry, you've said this repeatedly, Jeremy, but it's only just sinking in.
> Rather than a document of the form
> <rdf:RDF ...>
>   <wdr:DR>
>     ...
>   </wdr:DR>
> </rdf:RDF>
> There could be no <rdf:RDF> root element and therefore POWDER-unaware 
> RDF tools would skip it. But, we could retain all the flexibility and 
> extensibility of RDF/XML.
> Let's just test that...
> http://www.fosi.org/projects/powder/dr-o1TN.rdf is example 1 from [1] 
> reformatted without the rdf:RDF root node as below. The RDF Validator 
> gives the helpful reply "Error: Your document does not contain any RDF 
> statement." and yet of course my browser parses the XML just fine.

Not quite - if you go to the advanced interface for the validator


and click at least the first option

there are a load of errors indicating that you've got a striping problem
But you're well on the way.

And in this model it is a very simple choice as to whether to advertise 
the fact that the document is RDF/XML or not, by the selection of the 
mimetype. With an XML mimetype, then the only clue as to what to do with 
this document would be the namespace. With an RDF/XML mimetype you would 
be licensing the simple version of the RDF meaning as well (I am 
expecting David to give the case against this)

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:42:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:12 UTC