W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: minor RDF tax was: Re: RDDL/RDF

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:02:48 -0500
Message-ID: <006d01c28fc3$949ae8d0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Tim Bray said:
> >
> > Er JB, for the noobs, how is this RDF?  I see no RDF namespace anywhere?
> I'd have a hard time seeing how a system could recognise this was
> RDF/XML in some form too.  There is no <rdf:RDF> block anywhere as a
> clue even.  I doubt you'd use a MIME type to signify it either, since
> it is intended to be text/html I expect.

There are a variety of options for how someone might know that a fragment of

1) it is enclosed in a document with an <rdf:RDF> root element and served as
media type application/rdf+xml
2) it is enclosed in a document with an <rdf:RDF> element, and the processor
is instructed to treat anything inside as RDF/XML.
3) The processor is given some form of document type specific knowledge
about the contents of a document (this is frequently how  XML documents are

Presuming that RDDL/RDF continues to be an XHTML extension, we could
presumably include an <rdf:RDF> element as a child of <xhtml:body> if we
want to go with option 2), or have the RDDL spec just _say_ that
<rddl:resource> elements are to be processed as RDF-- i.e. constrained to
the RDF typed node element production,  if we want to go with option 3).

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:22:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:55 UTC