Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Peter Murray-Rust <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 23:14:05
At 17:01 29/05/98 -0400, Paul Prescod wrote:
>This suggests to me that RDF breaks down at that level. I think that RDF
>should be used to:
> * describe the relationship between documents and schemata.
I'd agree with this - but I think it's outside our current scope. Of course
the xml:namespace PI is one way of linking documents (or components of
documents) to schemata.
> * describe the relationship between elements and their attributes.
The examples I have given use simple containment. I suspect this is
adequate for everything we need to do at this stage. As far as the DTD is
concerned an attribute can only belong to an element. Of course there is an
increasing use of 'global attributes' (e.g. xml:lang, CLASS) but formally
they need declaring for every element or the parser will throw an error.
However there are attributes (e.g. xml:lang and the xlink:form="extended"
attributes where the *prose* describes additional semantics. I have voiced
my concern about these, but at least an RDF or other model might make
honest citizens out of them.
>But I can't see an intuitive RDF-compatible encoding for content model
>relationships. Some types of relationships are just outside of RDF's
It's also not necessary, I suspect.
Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)