- From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:03:23 -0500
- To: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, atom-owl@googlegroups.com
Phil Dawes wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> I've been having similar thoughts recently, although my motivation is
> being able to translate xml into rdf triples with the minimum of
> mapping information.
>
> I've written a script (to test the idea) that does pretty-much the
> same translation - if you're interested I'll stick it on the web
> somewhere when I get to work.
>
> N.B. I think it'd also need to handle ordered collections to be
> generically useful (since xml is implicitly ordered).
What about using a different "look" for elements that encode nodes from
elements that encode relationships between them?
<a>
<-b->
<c/>
</-b->
</a>
encodes
a -(b)-> c
make the semantic of the nesting explicit but without going all the way
to RDF... and also makes it graphically applealing too (which is one of
the properties that RDF/XML clearly missed)
It's trivial to write an RDFizer for the above XML yet it would not
scare away those who believe that RDF is inherently evil.
What do you think?
--
Stefano.
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:03:26 UTC