- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:51:41 +0100
- To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: "Xml-Dev" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>> I can understand the need for an <rdf:RDF> wall around embedded >RDF in the >> current syntax (to keep its Gothic structure out of sight). If >however the >> RDF was restricted to (decapitated) one-layer statements, I reckon an >> <rdf:D> ha-ha is adequate. > >Actually, rdf:RDF isn't required, and Reuters Health doesn't use it. Fair enough. I suppose I was overlaying my own (non-standard) interpretation. The recommendation of WG to eschew embedding in XHTML and link in the RDF instead (see Dave Becketts comments at [1], Sean Palmer's discussion of approaches to embedding at [2]), yet the obvious benefit of being able to embed would suggest that this is an issue that is likely to keep resurfacing. I must say btw that the Reuters Health data is an excellent example of how RDF/XML needn't be ugly. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0039.html [2] http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 06:03:56 UTC