W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 1999

Re: rdf in practice

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:28:20 -0500 (EST)
To: "Weiss-Lijn, Mischa" <Mischa.Weiss-Lijn@ptp.sira.co.uk>
cc: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.9911051324110.24041-100000@tux.w3.org>
Actually, rdf CAN be used in XML documents with other types of XML. The W3C
specification Namespaces in XML have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR for W3C
specifications) describes how to do it. It works precisely because RDF
already is written in XML, which makes it seem odd to try and write a new
version of RDF in XML as well.

I'm not sure what the "extra work needed" is (beyond putting RDF elements
into a stylesheet - rdf:rdf {display: none} seems like a good start to me),
but it seems much more sensible to do that than to rewrite RDF.

Charles McCN

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Weiss-Lijn, Mischa wrote:

  	I am building some software for tagging documents with metadata
  (it's a kind of business version of the TEI).  Ideally I would like to use
  RDF to do this.  But in order to make my life easier I need use of the
  software and standards provided by the likes of W3C (i.e. XML, XSL, DOM),
  IBM (their XML and XSL Parsers), and Microsoft (IE5 as a renderer).  
  I don't see how these tools can be practically used with RDF.  RDF can not
  be mixed with non-RDF XML, which makes it very hard to use XSLT to
  manipulate XML content according to the metadata it is associated to.  It
  seems much easier to encode the metadata as XML, and abandon RDF altogether.
  Can you suggest a way round this?  Can any of you give good justifications
  for the extra work needed to use RDF?
Received on Friday, 5 November 1999 13:28:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:21 UTC