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

RE: [RSS-DEV] Prism and RSS 1.0

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@metacode.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 08:23:54 -0700
Message-ID: <0D611E39F997D0119F9100A0C931315C95B657@datafusionnt1>
To: "'Gabe Beged-Dov'" <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Cc: "'dc-datamodel@mailbase.ac.uk'" <dc-datamodel@mailbase.ac.uk>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
(I've changed the cc: list since I can't post to the
rss and dc-implementers lists. I've also added the
rdf interest list since it is mentioned in Gabe's message.
Gabe, you may want to forward this to the rss and
dc-implementers lists. Thanks.)

Gabe Beged-Dov wrote:

	One possible test of being XML friendly is to supply a DTD/Schema
for
	the document type. A DTD is mentioned in the specification but I
	couldn't find one. Is one available or planned? If so, I see the use
	of rdf:Description as a stumbing block since it requires a context
	sensitive grammar. 

One of the editors of the spec thought producing a DTD
was a good idea, but came across the difficulty you
mentioned w.r.t. the content model of rdf:Description.
So, whether we end up with a DTD or not is an open question
at this time. (rdf:Description may just end up with a
content model of "any". Don't know yet.)

> Alternatively, you could use TypedNode syntax for all top-level
> resources and use the rdf:parseType="Resource" for nested resources
> that are untyped (as is done in some examples in the spec).
 
rdf:parseType is an interesting subject. I'm taking another
pass over the RDF profile, and have been thinking about
forbidding use of parseType when the value is anything other
than 'Literal', thus requiring all the resources to be typed.
(The assumption here is that by using the typed node abbreviation,
and forcing alternating nested elements to follow the node, arc,
node, arc, ... pattern, special-purpose parsers will be easier
to implement. To be honest, this comes from my personal
preferences and intuition, not from a serious examination of
many different descriptions and attempts to implement dedicated
parsers. So I'd be VERY interested in people's opinions on
that notion.) 

> The use of a profile seems very promising and is something would
> possibly be useful for many RDF in XML efforts. Do you think it is
> something that could be pursued in rdf-interest?
> 
Another interesting topic. Part of the problem is that PRISM,
like the W3C, has a membership fee. So, the members have a
reasonable expectation of getting some value not available to
the general public. On the other hand, getting feedback on
the use of RDF in the spec would be valuable.
I'll suggest this to the PRISM WG on the group email list
and see what the reaction is. It should not be too hard to
pull the profile section out of the spec, update it, and
send the draft of only that section to the rdf-interest list.

Regards,
Ron Daniel Jr.
Metacode Technologies, Inc.
139 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA  94107
415.836.7813 fax 415.222.0150 
rdaniel@metacode.com
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 11:23:58 GMT

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