Re: RDDL->RDF (was Re: Draft agenda of 22 February 2005 TAG

On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 08:55 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>   For example,

Hmm... OK... I get the following statements
(converted to turtle syntax
for clarity)

     @prefix : <#> .
     @prefix ns1: <> .

    :DTD     a
         ns1:validation <XMLSchema.dtd> .

    :xmlschema     a <>;
         ns1:schema-validation <XMLSchema.xsd> .

    :xmlschemap1     a <>;
<> .

(a) why are the subjects of these statements different?
They should have a common subject, right?
Does XLink say what URI is the other end of the link
in these cases? the XLink terminology seems to
be 'starting resource'...

 [Definition: A local resource is an XML element that participates in a
link by virtue of having as its parent, or being itself, a linking

that makes it sound like link resources are syntactic
elements. I would have thought that the subject
(aka starting resource?) in this case is the XML Schema
namespace. The RDDL spec talks about "related resource"s.
Related _to what_?

(b) using an IANA media-types registry entry as an RDF Class...
hmm... I wonder if IANA means it to be a class. Perhaps
better to use rddl:nature as the predicate there rather
than rdf:type.

Trying it on itself, I see those
issues plus a syntax error...

  <rdf:Description rdf:about="">

    <rdf:type rdf:resource="" />
    <rdf:resource rdf:resource="rddl2rdf.xsl" />

Using rdf:resource as a property element isn't allowed.

I haven't figured out whether that problem comes from
the input or the transformation.

There also seem to be some (documented) limitations in handling
of URI references...

	note: assume xlink:arcrole := absoluteURI  '#' fragment-id


> Dan Connolly <> writes:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 17:17 +0000, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> >> Further to Item 1.1.3: Review action items 7 Feb [1]:
> >> 
> >>   ACTION: Henry to produce a RDDL1 to RDF Style sheet or explain why not
> >> 
> >> I find that Jonathan Borden produced such a stylesheet over four years
> >> ago [2].  I tried it, it seems to work.
> >
> > I'm curious... tried it with what? I forget which input syntax it
> > expects. I'll try to get swapped back in, but any help you can provide
> > is welcome.
> Any RDDL document.

Ummm... the TAG has looked at a number of RDDL designs.
The "current" one, by some measure of current, is
and given that document as input, [2] doesn't work; it gives...

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!--RDF generated from RDDL document (>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=""

So please disambiguate the term 'RDDL' more clearly, at
least for a little while.

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 15:13:45 UTC