Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 15:41:22 -0700
At 10:02 PM 6/1/98 UT, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>We need to get the RDF discussion moving again so we can move on to specific
RDF is painfully simple, conceptually. And Lisa is correct in saying that
the syntax is (IMHO unnecessarily) kinda ugly; I think there are good
reasons to expect improvement.
But it is easy to tell if something can easily be made into RDF. Here's
the test: if what you are building can be expressed as a bunch of 3-tuples
(object, propertyname, propertyvalue)
then it's RDF-able. Otherwise it's not.
(document, rootType, HTML)
(elementType IMG, takesAttribute, SRC)
(attribute SRC, valueType, URI)
(attribute BORDER, defaultValue, "1")
(entity copy, value, "©")
(entity xml-spec, systemID, "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml")
are all easily RDF-able.
I think the only thing in DTD's that are not trivially RDF-able are
content models. They *are* RDF-able, but you have to use some of the
"Seq" machinery, which I find awkward. In fact *every* attempt so far
(the old DSD stuff, XML-Data, etc) to express content models in XML has
come up verbose and unreadable compared to good ol' 8879 DTD notation.
I think there's a better way, and want to see what xml-dev can come up
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)