rdf:RDF should be optional

Hi.

I don't believe that rdf:RDF should be required.  I'm familiar with the
conventional wisdom about a single root element being desirable, but I
really don't understand what it buys us, at least in this case.  On the
contrary, I think it's absolutely wonderful to be able to say that this
is RDF;

<Person xmlns="some-uri">
  <name>Mark</name>
</Person>

And moreover, that sending it around as "application/rdf+xml" means
something different (and richer, and more self-descriptive, i.e.
better!) than sending it around as "application/xml" or
"application/x-person+xml".

I have used that exact example to convince several people of the value
of RDF/XML over plain-old XML.  Without it, I'm not sure I would have
been able to.  Give it a try before passing judgement, please.

There's also the issue that seeing "rdf:RDF" isn't sufficient to
dispatch a document to an RDF processor, any more than it would be to
send a document containing "<html" - but sent as text/plain - to a
text/html processor.  But I'm aware that I'm in the minority with that
position.

Thanks.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 16:15:39 UTC