W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2000

Re: A DTD for the abstract RDF model

From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 23:35:34 -0700
Message-ID: <39E2B8B6.DF874F1F@jfinity.com>
To: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Tom Van Eetvelde wrote:

> Why not using DTD's to support serializing RDF?
> 
> Take a look at following DTD:
> 
> <!ELEMENT graph (arc)*>
> <!ELEMENT arc (node, link, node)>
> <!ELEMENT node>
> <!ELEMENT link>
> <!ATTLIST node id ID #optional>
> <!ATTLIST link id ID #optional>

I'm all for using a DTD to serialize RDF. My question is why can't you
use a specific subset of the RDF syntax that provides the same
expressive power while being completely compatable with the existing
framework? I'm thinking of rdf:Statement. Below is a fragment of your
example redone in rdf:Statement syntax (using the default namespace).
It can also be described using a DTD while still being compatable with
the current spec. For lots of examples of the use of this syntactic
subset of RDF check out Jos De Roo's work [1] (one caveat is that
resources are not encoded using the rdf:resource attribute but as
literals).

<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
  <Statement>
     <subject resource="#Kevin"/>
     <!-- note that you can't really use qnames like this without
schema 
          support. It sure makes it succinct though -->
     <predicate resource="rdf:type"/>
     <object resource="s:Person"/>
  </Statement>
  ...
</RDF>

[1] http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 02:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT