[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:10:17 -0400
Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote:
>
> > jonathan@openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) writes:
> > >FWIW, RelaxNG can be used to define the RDF/XML syntax.
> > >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-RELAXNG-Schema (the
> > >schema has some errors, but is close). Note that when viewed as
> > >compact RelaxNG, the RDF/XML syntax doesn't seem _all that_ complex.
> >
> > Cool - what are the errors?
> >
> > The spec doesn't list them.
>
> I think
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0274.html .
> Somehow the "- (local:* " got deleted from the initial stabs at this, but
> I'm unsure if that was intentional.
No, it was accidental, I'll restore it. (The schema comes with no guarantees :)
As far as any XML schema language is appropriate for general RDF/XML
with it's open use of XML Namespaces, RelaxNG is the one I'd suggest is
most appropriate (compared to for example W3C XML Schemas which is more
of a closed/complete DTD style).
For a specific RDF application written in RDF/XML, choosing to constrain
the multiple abbreviations it provides and namespaces allowed, you can
clearly write a much more useful specific XML schema.
But the subject is RelaxNG, so I'll just say that I find it useful and the
compact syntax in particular, very readable.
Dave
|
