Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <SimonStL@classic.msn.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 98 23:34:08 UT
Tim Bray wrote:
>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.
Great! If this is the case (and I think it is, except for content models, as
you noted), I think we can move on to other issues.
I'd like to see the RDF-aware on this list continue to make input whenever we
stray into territory that seems impossible to reconcile with a transformation
into RDF, but this 'RDF in a Nutshell' gives us a useful guideline for future
Does it seem reasonable to proceed, keeping a lookout for RDF without chaining
ourselves to its (apparently unstable) syntax?
Let me (or the list) know. I think we're ready.
Tim also wrote:
>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
Sounds like a good challenge. Let's get to work!
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies
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)