Re: Is it a semantic problem?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF
	xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

	<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://url.com">
		<item rdf:parseType="Resource">
			<title>Some title Here</title>
			<description>This is fun</description>
		</item>
	</rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

This is much better!
Thanks! Am I missing something?

On 6/19/05, Petko Petkov <p.d.petkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it ok to use something like this:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <rdf:RDF
>         xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
>         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>         xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
> >
> 
>         <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://url.com">
>                 <item>
>                         <title>Some title Here</title>
>                         <description>This is fun</description>
>                 </item>
>         </rdf:Description>
> 
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> in order to group the title and the description elements. IsaViz and
> the w3 validator doesn't provide me with the graph that I would like
> to see.
> 
> On 6/19/05, Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 19 Jun 2005, at 14:32, Petko Petkov wrote:
> > > As far as I can see, when dealing with RDF data, we should design the
> > > statements, not the actual structure of the XML file. I guess this
> > > will be a big problem for many XML developers.
> >
> > Yes. One should be working with the semantics at the level of the
> > statement, not one of its possible serialisations. To do otherwise is
> > to incorrectly conflate RDF and RDF/XML. I find it makes a lot more
> > sense to work in Turtle/Notation3, using RDF/XML solely for interchange..
> >
> > [jibe] XML developers have a long history of implicit and poorly-
> > specified semantics,  so yes, this might be difficult for them. [/jibe]
> > Conversely, much XML does translate quite easily to RDF, whether
> > through GRDDL or simply striping. It's not all that clear-cut.
> >
> > > However, I wonder, what it will be the best way to create sort of
> > > relationship between statements. Anyone?
> >
> > You might be interested in the work of the SW Best Practices Working
> > Group:
> >
> > <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/>
> >
> > particularly n-ary relations:
> >
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-n-aryRelations/>
> >
> > This approach can be used to deal with this sort of problem on a case-
> > by-case basis.
> >
> > However, many problems do indeed decompose to annotation of other
> > statements, so other solutions (such as named graphs and quads) are
> > being considered as more general solutions. These, though, are
> > outside the scope of RDF as it currently stands.
> >
> > -R
> >
> >
>

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2005 16:05:30 UTC