- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 10:05:10 +0100
- To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
The Cambridge Communique [1] cropped up a couple of times in recent
exchanges, and prompted me to go re-read it.
I note item, 8 may be regarded as partially addressed by a recent RDFcore
decision [2]:
[[
8. A new simplified XML transfer syntax for RDF and an API for accessing
RDF data models should be produced. The RDF 1.0 transfer syntax remains a
W3C Recommendation and applications are free to continue to use it. It is
not a requirement that XML Schema be able to validate conformance to the
full grammar of RDF 1.0 syntax (e.g. equivalence of elements and attributes).
]]
Now that the rdf:nodeID concept has been accepted, it would be fairly
simple to profile a subset of RDF/XML that has a direct mapping to triple
form; e.g.
<rdf:Description {rdf:about='<subj>'|rdf:nodeID='<subjID>'} >
{ <property {rdf:resource='<obj>'|rdf:nodeID='<objID>'}/> |
<property [rdf:parseType='Literal']
[xml:lang='...'] >literal</property> }
</rdf:Description>
(using {...|...} for alternatives, and [...] for optional elements)
#g
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-schema-arch-19991007
[2] Proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0080.html
Agreed with minor changes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jul/0163.html
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 08:46:58 UTC