- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:19:16 +0100
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:09:49 -0500, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote: Alternatively, you could have a special > vocabulary for (partially) translating XML, like ex:containedValue and > ex:containedElement (which would retain some information that simple > blank predicates would lose). See: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset-rdfs I recently got into discussion on this (on the Atom list) with Roy T. Fielding. To paraphrase, he generally accepted the analysis that XML didn't make the relations more explicit than syntax containership, but argued that the relations were "obvious", and shouldn't really need making explicit. His word for any format that didn't use the obvious XML interpretation "perverse". RDF/XML falls into that category ;-) Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:19:17 UTC