Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

Tim Bray wrote:
> >
> > First, could you please be more concrete about all of these? A syntax
> > example would be helpful. I could guess but an RDF-in-XML expert may
> > know short-cuts that I don't know. Also, is it harder to detect the
> > purpose for an RDF processor or just a general-purpose XML processor
> > with RDF knowledge?
>
> First of all check out one of Jonathan's sketches at
> http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2, which shows off some of his thinking.

Yes, just sketches. In particular I've edited/added some of the green text.

A brief explanation. This is XHTML+RDF where I've added a top level
attribute:

rddl:annotation-ns=http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml

This might be used by a RDF processor to ignore any elements within the
namespace. Such a processor would continue to parse elements and attribute,
just not pass along any elements in the given namespace (or list of
namespaces) to the SAX processor that is parsing the RDF.

By this mechanism, XHTML and RDF can be intermingled without interfering
with one another.


 If I
> have something like (in N3)
>
> <> <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation> <L.dtd>
>
> How do I infer that this is a purpose, especially if you cook up your
> own purposes like
>
> <> <http://prescod.net/purposes#transmogrify> <L.transmog>
>
> Right now, in both the simple XLink and RDF formulations, it's easy to
> use nature/purpose as a two-part key to look up what you want, and
> people seem to like this approach.

In both cases the RDF predicate is the RDDL purpose.

In both cases the RDF type of the object is the RDDL nature, e.g.

<L.dtd> rdf:type <...#DTD>
<L.transmog> rdf:type <...#transmog>

Jonathan

Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 20:41:02 UTC