- From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:05:46 -0000
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, xml-dev@xml.org
Stefan Decker wrote: > Mark, > > if i look at your example: > > > [my object-as-XML sample] > > all i need to make a valid RDF-document out of it is to add namespace > declarations: > > <?xml version='1.0' encoding='ISO-8859-1'?> > > <rdf:RDF > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns= "http://www.rdfschema.org/mynamespace.rdf#"> > > > at the beginning > > and > > </rdf:RDF> > > at the end, and to replace ID with rdf:ID. Thats it. > > [Stefan's RDF version of same object] > > Maybe the syntax isn't that bad.... That's right. IMO, the whole point of the 'abbreviated forms' that have been moaned about recently is so that almost any *existing* XML file can 'become' RDF. As it happens you don't even need the RDF tag or the ID attribute - they can be abbreviated too so you could have left my XML alone and just said 'it is now RDF'. Best regards, Mark Birbeck x-port.net
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 04:05:38 UTC