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, 23 April 2007 18:20:02 GMT