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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:07:35 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021120220103.03ec76d0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

At 02:29 PM 11/17/02 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>The above is, in RDF syntax terms, a "typed node element". RDF allows alot
>(in many cases too much) flexibility in how the XML determines the graph
>(set of triples). In particular the pattern:
>
><rddl:resource ID="foo">
>     <rddl:nature resource="http://example.org/nature"/>
>     <rddl:purpose resource="http://example.org/purpose"/>
>     <rddl:related resource="http://example.org/L.dtd"/>
>     <rddl:prose>
>         <p>A description of the "L" language</p>
>     </rddl:prose>
></rddl:resource>
>
>uses unqualified attributes: ID and resource, but any namespace qualified
>element may be interpreted as a "Typed Node" in which case the URI
>equivalent of the element name is the rdf:type of the described RDF
>resource.

Interesting!

After all these years (it seems) I really hadn't considered that one might 
use RDF without actually invoking the RDF namespace.  It even gets through 
the online validator (with warnings) modulo the rddl namespace decl and <p> 
issue you noted later.

I have a niggle about possible confusion of non-namespace-prefixed resource 
attributes, so maybe one should be careful about eliding the RDF namespace 
prefix.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 17:16:39 GMT

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