- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:03:04 +0000
- To: Keith Bohnenberger <kbohnenberger@mcdonaldbradley.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:54:39 -0500, Keith Bohnenberger <kbohnenberger@mcdonaldbradley.com> wrote: > Where do I find information on the requirements for writing XML so that > it is RDF parse-able. I believe some people might refer to this as > embedded RDF. > > I have read through the RDF/XML Syntax Specification and section 2.6 > states that the RDF-XML must be enclosed in an rdf:RDF tag. Actually it says you can omit it: [[... When there is only one top-level node element inside rdf:RDF, the rdf:RDF can be omitted although any XML namespaces must still be declared. ]] -- 2.6 Completing the Document: Document Element and XML Declaration http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#section-Syntax-complete-document The section above outlines the rules informally (and correctly I hope). The section 7.2.1 Grammar start http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#start on starting the RDF/XML grammar gives you the rules about exactly when. > However, the rdf validator page (http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/) has a > check box to specify that the XML entered does not have the RDF tag. > > So I think my question is, when you check that checkbox and you paste in > some XML what are the rules you need to follow in order for that XML to > be validated as RDF parse-able? > What spec are these rules in or where can I find them? There are no formal such rules, but in general you need to make the XML either flat (triple-like) or what is normally called striped (alternating node elements and property elements). Striped can be seen in Example 1 in the syntax spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210/#example1 or in an older document by Dan Brickley http://www.w3.org/2001/10/stripes/ > I am trying to make sure that an XML schema we are creating is RDF parse > able because an instance of that schema will end up as instances in our > RDF/RDF ontology. That seems likely to be fraught with problems, especially when refering to xsi:type attributes. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 06:06:34 UTC