Re: About Refactoring RDF/XML Syntax Rivision 1.43

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