- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 17:25:37 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 02:54 PM 9/6/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 5. Is rdf:RDF optional? > > > > # Aaron has already mentioned about this > > > > Different parsers might generate different models without rdf:RDF, > > especially in case where rdf-ns can be used as a namepsace uri of > > propertyElt. So I suggest that WG recommend to use rdf:RDF for any RDF/XML > > document. > >The only cases I've seen which don't have rdf:RDF are standalone files, >hence the rule maybe > >RDF ::= <rdf:RDF> description* </rdf:RDF> > | description > >Current M&S does not specify how RDF is signalled when embedded, unless by >rdf:RDF. Does anyone know of an embedding of RDF which does not use rdf:RDF >as the signal to move to rdf processing mode. > >Personally I support the proposal to mandate the use of rdf:RDF Ironically, I've just sent a report to the W3C online validator because it doesn't work as required in the absence of <rdf:RDF>. The reason I'm interested in this is because I'm suggesting that XML formats used in some kinds of (IETF) protocol elements be RDF-compliant (in this case, presence information); i.e. conform to RDF syntax -- mainly this involves ensuring that the "striped" XML structure is used, and making sure the appropriate namespace declarations are present. This makes RDF a relatively easy sell (it costs very little to implement and might yield great benefits in due course). I therefore suggest the above syntax is appropriate, and the current RDF specification is about right on this point. (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#54) #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 12:45:03 UTC