RE: Generated RDF conformant with good practise? from Howard Katz on 2004-09-17 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from September 2004)

From: Howard Katz <howardk@fatdog.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:17:12 -0700
To: "Libby Miller" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IKEOLCDFPBBPPAHGNKKOGEELEPAA.howardk@fatdog.com>

> ah, I misunderstood what a bib was, sorry, serves me right for rushing
> it. It might clarify things to have typed Bib and Book objects perhaps.

OK, I didn't make that clear. Sorry. Given that understanding then, I'd like
to re-ask my question to see if your answer still holds. Assuming we want
our RDF to represent a bibliography containing pointers to various books, do
you still feel the following is a reasonable way of modelling that
relationship (ignoring the question of typed vs untyped nodes)?

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:bibterm="http://www.book-stuff.com/terms/"
         xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/"
         xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
    <bibterm:Bib>
         <bibterm:book rdf:parseType="Resource">
                 <bibterm:year>1994</bibterm:year>
                 <dc:title>TCP/IP Illustrated</dc:title>
         </bibterm:book>
         <bibterm:book rdf:parseType="Resource">
                 <bibterm:year>1992</bibterm:year>
                 <dc:title>Advanced Programming in the Unix
environment</dc:title>
         </bibterm:book>
     </bibterm:Bib>
</rdf:RDF>

Thanks,
Howard

Received on Friday, 17 September 2004 00:15:53 UTC