Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mike Champion wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:53:51 -0500, Jonathan Borden
> > 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'
> > .
> How does the RDF processor know that the rddl:resource is an rdf:type?
It matches the "typed node element" production in the RDF syntax. Basically
whenever you expect to see:
and instead you see:
it is "shorthand" for:
where &foo; is the namespace URI bound to the "foo" prefix.
> or that the rddl:prose content is an rdf:XMLLiteral?
the DTD can have a default attribute rdf:parseType="Literal", but I forgot
to attach this attribute to the <rddl:prose> property, so it should be:
<example>the value of the -rddl:prose- property is this piece of
> Is there an RDF schema somewhere that asserts this?
> More generally, can one use RDF schema to keep the author of an XML
> document only minimally aware of the RDF underpinnings?
Generally not, RDF schemas really don't do syntactic things like default
attributes. RDF Schemas -themselves- don't do much. Both RDF Schema and OWL
act on the parsed set of triples, not the original XML.
I've written a short OWL for RDDL at http://www.rddl.org/rddl2.owl .
In OWL you can limit the number of a particular property via the
<cardinality> restriction. Similarly you can say that owl:allValuesFrom a
certain property must be of a particular type, or that the rdfs:range of a
particular property is restricted to objects of a particular rdf:type. In
this way OWL allows you to say many of the things UML does -- i.e. OWL can
be viewed as a syntax for UML diagrams - FWIW