- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:53:02 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: W3C RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sando Hawke has been experimenting with something he calls "blindfold grammars", which has a slightly wider but related goal. For some details, see: http://www.w3.org/2001/06/blindfold/grammar Also, there has been some recent feedback on the RDF-comments mailing list about using different schema environments to validate RDF -- I'm not sure if they go as far as automated triple generation. Finally, I've noted that it is often quite easy to define a "conventional" XML language to be RDF compatible; e.g. some work I'm doing to represent email metadata in XML and RDF: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klyne-message-rfc822-xml-02.txt #g -- At 01:48 PM 9/18/01 -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote: >I've just subscribed to the IG, so please pardon me if this is >a FAQ. > >I've been looking around at the various papers about extracting RDF >from XML [1][2], and was wondering what the current state of such >work is. > >While these proposals look promising, I'd like to be able to adorn an >XML Schema to explicitly indicate which elements can be used as >statements; surely this shouldn't be too difficult? (disclaimer: I'm >not a Schema expert). > >Has this particular approach been contemplated? I know there's been >discussion in the past; is there ongoing work or discussion in this >area? > >Cheers, > > >1. http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/fusion.html >2. http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/rdf_Syntax_and_Names.htm > >-- >Mark Nottingham >http://www.mnot.net/ > ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 06:01:20 UTC