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

RE: rdf statement semantics and coding recommendation

From: John M. Lauck <john@recaffeinated.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:12:51 -0500
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1Cxo5h-0000BT-5F@frink.w3.org>

Thanks for clearing that up, Benjamin.

John M Lauck

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Nowack 
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2005 7:50 AM
To: John M Lauck
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: rdf statement semantics and coding recommendation

On 05.02.2005 18:32:08, John M Lauck wrote:
>
>I'm curious about the semantics of RDF in the following example taken 
>from rdfx.org (in comparison to the W3C RDF Primer documentation):
I assume you mean the examples' *syntax*, not their semantics?
Both examples are valid (different syntactic variations, but same
semantics from a quick glance). There is an example in the RDF
Primer (section 6.something), but for more details about RDF/XML's
syntactic alternatives I'd suggest having a look at the syntax
spec[1] which covers abbreviations etc.

One reason why literal properties are sometimes written as attributes
is the advantage of not being rendered when viewed in an html browser.
This can be utilized to inclue/hide/embed RDF/XML in html docs to a
certain extent.

cheers,
benjamin

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/

--
Benjamin Nowack

Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany
http://www.bnode.org/

>
>For example, rdfx.org has written their RDFX schema as:
>
><!--Begin Property -->
>
><rdf:Property
> rdf:about="http://rdfx.org/schema/2004/04/15-rdfx-schema#defines"
>	vs:term_status="testing"
>	rdfs:label="Defines"
>	rdfs:comment="A 'Defines' relationship indicates that the object 
>resource is to some extent defined by the subject.">
>	<rdfs:domain
>rdf:resource="http://rdfx.org/schema/2004/04/15-rdfx-schema#DataSource"></r
dfs:
>domain>
>	<rdfs:range 
>rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"></rdfs:range>
>	<rdfs:isDefinedBy 
>rdf:resource="http://rdfx.org/schema/2004/04/15-rdfx-schema#"></rdfs:isDefi
nedB
>y>
>	<owl:inverseOf 
>rdf:resource="http://rdfx.org/schema/2004/04/15-rdfx-schema#definedby"/>
>
></rdf:Property>
>
><!--End Property -->
>
>
>Can (or Shouldn't) the schema be written as:
>
>
><!--Begin Property -->
>
><rdf:Property 
>rdf:about="http://rdfx.org/schema/2004/04/15-rdfx-schema#defines">
>
>	<vs:term_status>testing</vs:term_status>
>	<rdfs:label>Defines</rdfs:label>
>	<rdfs:comment>A 'Defines' relationship indicates that the object 
>resource is to some extent defined by the subject.</rdfs:comment>
>
>......
>
></rdf:Property>
>
>
><!--End Property -->
>
>Why are 'rdfs:label', 'rdfs:comment' etc listed in the rdf:Property 
>statement?  Is there a reason to write RDF this way?
>
>John M Lauck
>
>
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2005 15:12:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:13 GMT