Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> 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? :-)
As I've said many times RDF doesn't *have* to be complicated, unfortunately,
RDF all too often get's way too complicated and that's where sensible folks
get thrown off the boat.
that XML makes the following assertions:
<#foo> rdf:type rddl:resource .
<#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/nature> .
<#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/purpose> .
<#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/L.dtd> .
<#foo> rddl:prose "<p>A description of the 'L' language>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral .
where that last one is the new typed literal syntax where a string literal
is separated from a type QName or URI by "^^".
> Would a "native" RDF processor understand the assertions in there, or
> a RDDL->RDF filter be needed?
A processor would only need to know where to look in the RDDL document for
the XML to be parsed as RDF. I've suggested an attribute on the top element:
which would tell a parser to ignore elements in the XHTML namespace, and
start parsing as RDF elements in any other namespace e.g. <rddl:resource>.
An *actual* RDF document would look like:
so call it a RDDL->RDF filter but its a darn simple one. On the other hand
browsers are pretty forgiving in what they'll accept as HTML if you give the
document a .html extension. For example (this works in IE5.5 at least):
That document is real RDF.