- From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 08:26:07 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- CC: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>, tpassin@comcast.net
> <River rdf:ID="Yangtze"> > <length> > <Length> > <measurement> > <LengthMeasure> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="LengthInMiles"/> > <number>3914</number> > <LengthMeasure> > </measurement> > </Length> > </length> > </River> > rdf:type is more "natural" RDF to my mind, means something to every > RDF application, and allows for more compact and generally more > human-readable RDF/XML. Unless there were a clear reason not to > I would favour rdf:type. That seems reasonable to me Jon. Tom (or anyone), do you have any comments? /Roger P.S. Folks, the archiving software for this list seems to be temporarily down. Please cc me on any messages pertaining to this topic.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 08:33:55 UTC