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

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

From: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@snee.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:00:30 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20020927134957.009ec110@mail.snee.com>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, <charles@w3.org>

At 9/27/02 10:08 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> In other words, a parser looks for RDF stuff and assumes
>that anything inside an rdf-namespaced element is RDF - whether that is a
>root RDF element or whether there is a fragment with some other root
>element...

At 9/27/02 10:50 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>That said, a lot of people are interested in exploring the use of XML
>Schema annotations to map from more colloquial XML into RDF graphs.  IMHO
>there's a major role for this approach too, so long as we have at least
>one syntax for RDF that takes the self-standing view...

These both make a lot of sense to me. RDF could add more value to more documents if it we don't have to assume that a given document with RDF in it was designed solely RDF applications. 

I thought I'd seen somewhere -- and now not only can't I cite it, but I've also seen production [1] at http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#basic -- that the rdf:RDF element is optional, and I had the impression that only ARP supported this, but now I realized that this is an extra feature of ARP not required by any RDF Recommendation.

Bob DuCharme          www.snee.com/bob           <bob@  
snee.com>  "The elements be kind to thee, and make thy
spirits all of comfort!" Anthony and Cleopatra, III ii
(bobdc e-mail address used only for mailing lists)
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 13:59:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:56 GMT