W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: minor RDF tax was: Re: RDDL/RDF

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:27:55 -0500
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <r01050400-1022-250123F0FA4111D697700003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes [corrected example]:
>So then how about
><h:html   xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/"
>xmlns:h="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >
>    <h:head>
>        <h:title>RDDL Description for http://example.org/L</h:title>
>    </h:head>
>    <h:body>
>        <h:h1>RDDL Description for http://example.org/L</h:h1>
>    <h:p>This document describes the "L" namespace and provides links
to
>    related resources</h:p>
>    <rddl:resource ID="L">
>        <rddl:title>DTD</rddl:title>
>        <rddl:nature
>resource="http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/
>applicati
>on/xml-dtd"/>
>        <rddl:purpose 
>resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#validation"/>
>        <rddl:related resource="http://example.org/L.dtd"/>
>        <rddl:prose><p>A DTD for the L language &ltL&gt is the root
>element.</p></rddl:prose>
>    </rddl:resource>
>.....
></h:body>
></h:html>
>
>The above *is* RDF and closely mirrors your ideal XML syntax - sure
>there are some minor differences but you must admit the differences
>are minor.

That's really promising, yes.  I have some ongoing concerns about the
wisdom of using URI references in attributes, but that's a major
improvement over its predecessors. 


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 10:27:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT