[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>> I can understand the need for an <rdf:RDF> wall around embedded
>RDF in the
>> current syntax (to keep its Gothic structure out of sight). If
>however the
>> RDF was restricted to (decapitated) one-layer statements, I reckon an
>> <rdf:D> ha-ha is adequate.
>
>Actually, rdf:RDF isn't required, and Reuters Health doesn't use it.
Fair enough. I suppose I was overlaying my own (non-standard)
interpretation.
The recommendation of WG to eschew embedding in XHTML and link in the RDF
instead (see Dave Becketts comments at [1], Sean Palmer's discussion of
approaches to embedding at [2]), yet the obvious benefit of being able to
embed would suggest that this is an issue that is likely to keep
resurfacing.
I must say btw that the Reuters Health data is an excellent example of how
RDF/XML needn't be ugly.
Cheers,
Danny.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0039.html
[2] http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/
|
