Re: missing bit of RDF for XML people

To illustrate how "obvious" these relationships sometimes are, you can 
run some arbitrary XML through the W3C's RDF validator

Obvious to *people* maybe.


Danny Ayers wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:09:49 -0500, Frank Manola <> 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:
> 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.  

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 14:31:18 UTC