W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2004

Re: rdf parse-able

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:27:06 -0500
Message-ID: <404E60DA.9050901@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Keith Bohnenberger wrote:
> Where do I find information on the requirements for writing XML so that
> it is RDF parse-able.  I believe some people might refer to this as
> embedded RDF.
> I have read through the RDF/XML Syntax Specification and section 2.6
> states that the RDF-XML must be enclosed in an rdf:RDF tag.
> However, the rdf validator page (http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/) has a
> check box to specify that the XML entered does not have the RDF tag.
> So I think my question is, when you check that checkbox and you paste in
> some XML what are the rules you need to follow in order for that XML to
> be validated as RDF parse-able?
> What spec are these rules in or where can I find them?

Fundamentally, you read the RDF Synax Rec and the RDF primer.  It helps 
to see how some other people have done it. A lot depends on whether you 
want your XML to look like a "normal" xml file or not.

If you do, search for "striped xml" - there have been a few articles 
posted on this.  You could look at www.xpackages.org.

If that is what you want to do, you can probably do so with just a 
little bit of care and tweaking, like using rdf:Resource and 
rdf:Collection at strategic places.

Keep running samples through the rdf validator - look at the graphs and 
make sure you can understand what is happening.  After a while, it 
should start to make sense.

There is nothing that says you have to use all the syntactical options 
allowed by the rec.  Pick a small subset you are happy with and stick 
with that.

As for the RDF root element, it is now optional as long as the processor 
has some other way to know that it is dealing with an RDF document.  How 
it up to you.  If you are writing the data mianly for consumption by 
your own processors, you could omit it.  If you are interested in many 
others using it, probably better to include it.


Tom P
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 19:25:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:50 UTC