- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Morcom, Harvey" <Harvey.Morcom@KPMG.co.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
You could put it anywhere in the document - one thing that some W3C specs do (SVG is an example) is to have a metadata element. I believe there is a way of putting anything in there, using an XML schema, but certainly you could pick specific RDF expressed according to a DTD and allow that. (Of course you're going to have a problem if you work with generic RDF tools and want to bring the results back into your XML language, because you need to restrict everything back to what you declared. The RDF schema isn't really related to the XML bit - it describes how the terms in the RDF vocabulary relate to each other, and potentially to other RDF vocabularies. Hope this is helpful. cheers Chaals On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Morcom, Harvey wrote: > >I want to add document metadata, based on the Dublin Core, to a number of XML files. The initial proposal was to include a <DocumentProperties> element which would contain child elements similar to that shown below: ><Document> > <DocumentProperties> > <Title>RDF Test File</Title> > <Created>2003-09-01</Created> > </DocumentProperties> > <Section> > etc.... > >However, after scanning the web I came across numerous articles relating to RDF at which point I decided to add the document metadata using RDF statements, but I am unsure how to include this in the XML files. Do I just replace the <DocumentProperties> element with the <RDF> element as the first child of the root-element? i.e. ><Document> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="RDF Test File"> > <dc:title> RDF Test File </dc:title> > <dc:creator> John Smith </dc:creator> > <dc:date> 2003-09-01 </dc:date> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> > <Section> > etc.... > >I assume I would then need to add the RDF vocabulary to my XML Schema in order for the XML file to be valid? >
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 08:55:56 UTC