Re: Identification and Metadata at Any Level

> I see no RDF mapping in this proposal. It is clear that one could use 
> the RDF to Frame mapping to map from RDF to Frames and attach them via 
> this metadata representation but (a) that doesn't account for the *i 
> component and how that relates to any Frame identifiers and (b) the 
> reverse mapping is not possible. I'm not comfortable with introducing a 
> metadata notation to the semantic web which can't be mapped to RDF 
> without some serious consultation.
> 
> This is not yet a formal objection. Up to now, to avoid blocking 
> progress, I've abstained (+/- 0) rather than objected to schemes I'm 
> less happy with. For this one I'd need to think about it some more and 
> consult with colleagues.

I really want the third column in the BLD table, showing what the
RDF/XML looks like for each PS and XML construct.  Axel took one pass at
it (using N-Triples) [1], but it needs some more attention, and I think
RDF/XML would be better for this case.

    -- Sandro

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/AbstractModel