Re: Using Rigid RDF for BLD's XML Syntax

> Sandro,
> 
> Alex Kozlenkov wrote:
> > 
> > We are of the opinion that this proposal adds an RDF dependency [...]
> 
> Does it really add a RDF dependency, in the sense of making any RIF 
> implementation dependent on RDF in some way? What kind of dependency 
> would that be (e.g.: requires to implement all or part of RDF? May 
> require to change something in the implementation following a change in 
> RDF? Requires the implementor to understand RDF? ...)?

I'm not quite sure what the dependency is.  There's a kind of conceptual
dependency, because the rdf namespace is used in the syntax, but one
could implement RIF without ever knowing what that's there for, or using
any RDF software.   (This is why it's "rigid RDF" instead of general
RDF/XML, which would require and RDF/XML parser be used.)

> Isn't it possible to make RIF XML "silently" valid RDF/XML, in the sense 
> that an RDF implementation can handle a RIF document as RDF (possibly 
> with some additional info, e.g. a RIF vocabulary or whatever), but a RIF 
> implementation does not need to know about RDF (and is not dependent on 
> RDF)?

Any XML syntax can be read as RDF/XML with a GRDDL transform, and I've
assumed we'd provide a GRDDL transform for our XML syntax.  *shrug*

       -- Sandro