- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 12:40:41 -0400
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I'd like to consider this business of requiring <rdf:RDF> a little bit further. In particular, Section 2.2.2 says: > (P70) While the serialization syntax shows the structure of an RDF model most clearly, often it is > desirable to use a more compact XML form. The RDF abbreviated syntax accomplishes this. As a further > benefit, the abbreviated syntax allows documents obeying certain well-structured XML DTDs to be directly > interpreted as RDF models. Would requiring an explicit RDF tag mean that there are "certain well-structured XML DTDs" which under the original rules could have been directly interpreted as RDF (and which didn't contain an explicit RDF tag) but couldn't under the change? If so, I would think this a problem, since being able to directly interpret XML as RDF would be a big win IMO. Do people think that it's unlikely that any XML would be directly interpretable as RDF unless it was intended from the start to be interpreted that way (and hence we could reasonably require an explicit RDF tag)? It's certainly true that the examples in Section 2.2.2 have such tags. --Frank Dave Beckett wrote: > snip > > You are assuming <rdf:RDF>...</rdf:RDF> is required (which looks like > something we are going to change the grammar to be) and defines > the scope of an RDF graph, maybe inside a large XML document. > > RDF M&S 1.0 says: > > The RDF element is a simple wrapper that marks the boundaries in an > XML document between which the content is explicitly intended to be > mappable into an RDF data model instance. The RDF element is > optional if the content can be known to be RDF from the application > context. > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#54 > > At present we seem to be heading to change this to something like > > <rdf:RDF> marks the boundary of an RDF graph and is a required element. > > but with more flowery words, and changing WD-to-be production 4.2 to > match that, generate a good / bad test case. > > Dave -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 12:41:27 UTC