- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:06:30 +0000
- To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 10:41 18/03/04 +0000, Bill de hÓra wrote: >IME, 5 are what's needed: > >RDF > graph + > triple * > resource > property > value [...] See Trix: http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-268.html Also related: GRDDL: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec RDF-in-XHTML: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/02/xhtml-rdf.html These are all discussed at the recent SWIG meeting in Cannes: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/meetings/tp2004.html #g -- At 10:41 18/03/04 +0000, Bill de hÓra wrote: >Chris Lilley wrote: > >>On Thursday, March 18, 2004, 6:01:14 AM, Tim wrote: TB> I've on a number >>of occasions >>TB> proposed a brutally minimalit XML syntax for RDf with only three TB> >>elements: resource, property, and value. >>Although XML can be used for 'database dump' structures where all the >>children of the root are identical. So >>RDF >> triple >> resource >> property >> value >> triple >> resource >> property >> value >> >>Four elements, entirely regular. > >IME, 5 are what's needed: > >RDF > graph + > triple * > resource > property > value > >plus some variants for the value (uri, raw xml, typed, etc). In other >words, almost everything needed from an XML serialization of RDF can be >expressed in a screenful of RNC. It's quite frustrating the W3C haven't >sanctioned something like this by now. > >cheers >Bill de hÓra ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:25:10 UTC