- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:42:23 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: [...] > Note that we also expect WG members to be familiar with > XML Schema. I for one have to admit to not feeling fully up to speed with > various aspects of the XML Schema specification. For some aspects, me too. But I found that I was able to use the Primer to learn how to build schemas, much like I learned XSLT from the spec... I might have already sent this info to the WG, but I don't clearly recall... I built some XML Schemas for subsets of RDF the other day; they might make a good intro to XML Schemas: http://www.w3.org/2001/04rs22/ There you'll find rdf0.rdf -- the simplest (as far as I know) document that conforms to the RDF spec. rdf0.xsd -- a simple XML Schema that rdf0.xsd is valid against. rdf0e.rdf -- a document that does *not* conform to rdf0.xsd, nor to the RDF spec. rdf1.rdf -- the next simples RDF document; one statement, no use of literals, sequences, or anything else with issues around it. rdf1.xsd -- an XML schema that rdf1.rdf validates against; it's perhaps not the simplest; it uses structures from a more complete schema for RDF. These things can be run thru the online XML Schema validator; there are links at the bottom that show how. The idea was to expand the schema (and the example documents) step-wise, to eventually visit each syntactic issue in the language. Along the way, we might discover some useful subsets of RDF syntax, ala megginson's stuff. (This relates to the attribute grammar that somebody built from XSLT; I keep meaning to find that thing again...) I'd appreciate it if anybody who *doesn't* know XML schema would take a look at this stuff and tell me if you're able to make sense of it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 23:43:36 UTC