- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:06:15 +0100
- To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, "SW-forum Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 15 Jul 2008, at 13:05, Mark Birbeck wrote: > > Hi Bijan, > >> One funny aspect of RDF/XML, as I understand the history, is that >> some of >> the quirkier aspects of its design stemmed from the goal of being >> embedable >> in HTML (hence all the alternative forms) in a legacy browser >> compatible >> way. > > That's interesting, I'd not heard that. Dave mentions it in: http://www.dajobe.org/2003/05/iswc/paper.html Of course, as I wrote to Taylor, a reason for having text or xml as element content is to allow fall back on literals (hence not *only* attributes for properties). > I did think though, that one of the things about the RDF/XML structure > was an attempt to enable many XML layouts to be interpreted as RDF. > But obviously that's enormously difficult. [snip] I don't think this was a design goal at the time. The idea that RDF/ XML might be made to "look like" XML stems, afaik, from the great RSS 1.0 debates and was applied to WSDL by Uche: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-rdf/ but didn't get much further. GRDDL is sorta a resurgence of that idea ;) Cheers, Bijan "Sad to have become a Grand Ole Fart of RDF/XML" Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 13:03:59 UTC