- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:19:09 +0100
- To: jborden@mediaone.net, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> I have a slightly heretical view that RDF is also about the RDF/XML > documents. I take this view, at least in part, because there is > information in the RDF/XML documents that is not currently being > captured in the RDF graph or triple representations like qname > mappings, anon resources, lang, occurrence vs. quoting of statements, > etc.. This sounds quite heretical, yes :) I would not quite agree with it because : - XML is about syntax, RDF is not. Nothing prevents you of handling the XML-Infoset view of an XML/RDF document, but *that* view is not relevant to RDF processors. - RDF could be seen, IMO, as another kind of Infoset for XML Since XML-Infosets are about elements (i.e. syntactical objects) RDF is about resources (i.e. semantical objects) The *lost* informations you mention are not critical to RDF : they are not needed by the (graph) model, but can be stored in it if needed (in a more or less pleasant way ;-P) - the context can be captured by means of "bagification" - about the xml:lang attribute of a litteral : some suggest to use an intermediate resource, with rdf:value and xml:lang some suggest to use data: URLs instead of literals - qnames mapping (if needed for re-serializing) may be stored as attributes of each resource... Pierre-Antoine
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 07:33:44 UTC