Here is a raw trial.

Sure I'm not modelling the "shouldn't" the right way. I omited all NS to go home earlier. I know it doesn't make it (but I  tried!), and I see your point: my statement was too general (Friday eve circumstances). Nevertheless, the idea that taking XML into RDF is 'narrowing' doesn't stand (my opinion of course).
AFAIK, the "world" of XML and the "world" of RDF are mutually inclusive.




Seth Russell wrote:

Gerard Maas wrote:

>   Following the definition of an URI, anything can have an URI (see also the
> discussion about Resources, entities and URI's of few weeks ago). RDF can be used
> to describe *any* resource, and not only those available "on-line".
> In that way, the scope of XML and RDF is the same: everything that can be
> described.

Cool !!   I stand corrected :)

How would you say: "Snow is not always white, because i remember I should not eat the
yellow snow"  in RDF ?

Seth Russell