W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: Form Post from Firefox

From: Dave Beckett <dave@dajobe.org>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:01:57 -0700
Message-ID: <44579085.9070003@dajobe.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Graham Klyne wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> * Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> [2006-05-01 11:32-0400]
>>> Just to clarify things, I don't think there are "RDF specs" and "RDF 
>>> syntax" affected other than RDF/XML are there?
>> RDF/XML yup, perhaps GRDDL, RDF/A might touch on this too; but I was also 
>> thinking about any future alternate XML encodings. Not that I'm yet
>> convinced this is needed; I just wanted to make sure the point was noted
>> on the appropriate list.
> It seems to me that this is a consequence of the "open tag set" problem of
> RDF/XML.  Other XML encodings that use a fixed tag set for RDF "syntax" wouldn't
> have the problem of distinguishing between RDF vocabulary and other annotations.

That's true for most of RDF/XML but *not* for the root element rdf:RDF which
RDF core did discuss adding things there, as it would not clash with
existing (property) uses - there aren't any.

As an example of what you could use it for; you could make RDF/XML v2 (!)
where you named graphs:

<rdf:RDF rdf:graphName="http://example.org/name">

or even add a new root

  <rdf:RDF ... />
  <rdf:RDF ... />

where the inner content of rdf:RDF is exactly as defined now.

But I better stop now, as this is not a discussion list for designing new
RDF syntaxes :)

Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 17:02:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:23 UTC