[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Shelley Powers wrote:
> Yours is the second interpretation of the model showing v as a resource
> defined elsewhere. I wonder, though, if a naive person with no exposure to
> RDF/XML would understand to do this?
I wonder why you'd expect them to.
> For instance, another interpretation
> could be to nest the second resource directly within the first. Would this
> nesting be illegal? It's perfectly proper XML, but is it proper RPV?
What matters is whether it reduces to proper RDF.
> For something like reification -- how would a naive user know to interpret
> the reified statement as a set of assertions about a statement rather than
> direct statements? We know, but then, we know the RDF model. This whole
> thing is based on a naive user being able to read the XML without having to
> know the model.
They wouldn't. When expert users can't agree on an interpretation of
what it (RDF reification) means, naive users are going to be at a
dead loss.
XML assumes you know something about the domain of what's being
marked up. RDF/XML is not distinct in this regard.
Bill de hÓra
|
