[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:00:40 -0500, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
wrote:
>
> <rddl:resource ID="XSD">
> <rddl:title>XML Schema</rddl:title>
> <rddl:nature resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"/>
> <rddl:purpose
> resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"/>
> <rddl:related resource="http://example.org/L.xsd"/>
> <rddl:prose>
> <p>An XML Schema for the L language .</p>
> </rddl:prose>
> </rddl:resource>
>
> hopefully the above XML is self explanatory -- in which case this is
> human
> readable! I think it is more readable than the XLink version.
That's very human readable ... but RDF-challenged as I am, I don't
understand how it uses RDF. Where is all the cruft that people complain
about? :-)
Would a "native" RDF processor understand the assertions in there, or would
a RDDL->RDF filter be needed?
|
