W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

Re: parsers that don't need rdf:RDF?

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:46:19 -0700
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
cc: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@snee.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <E18OjD1-0001cu-00@borgia.local>

> 
> >>>Bob DuCharme said:
> > 
> > I know that the W3C's "RDF Validation Service" at
> >http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/ and the downloadable ARP RDF
> >processor underneath it don't require RDF statements to be enclosed
> >inside of an rdf:RDF element. Are there any others that anyone can suggest? 
> 
> rdf/xml as an XML application requires the rdf:RDF document element,
> in order for it to be legal XML.

Not in RDF 1.0.

Please don't make the mistake of making rdf:RDF required in future RDF specs.

There is no reason why a document can't have one top-level top node in order 
to make the RDF even less intrusive.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
A Python & XML Companion - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/11/py-xml.html
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
MusicBrainz  metadata - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk14.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2002 15:05:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT