W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2005

Re: missing bit of RDF for XML people

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:19:16 +0100
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0502030619795814b1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:09:49 -0500, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote:

 Alternatively, you could have a special
> vocabulary for (partially) translating XML, like ex:containedValue and
> ex:containedElement (which would retain some information that simple
> blank predicates would lose).


I recently got into discussion on this (on the Atom list) with Roy T.
Fielding. To paraphrase, he generally accepted the analysis that XML
didn't make the relations more explicit than syntax containership, but
argued that the relations were "obvious", and shouldn't really need
making explicit. His word for any format that didn't use the obvious
XML interpretation "perverse". RDF/XML falls into that category ;-)



Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:19:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:55 UTC