[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I read RDF primer stuff, at least first part of warning commonly printed on
instruction manuals: "you must READ and UNDERSTAND the instruction manual"
is now true in my case when it comes to RDF ;)
But I was shocked when I started browsing through RDF syntax spec
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030905/
and came to
2.5 Property Attributes
where it says:
"When a property element's content is string literal, it may be possible to
use it as an XML attribute on the containing node element. This can be done
for multiple properties on the same node element only if the property
element name is not repeated "...
compared to section 2.4 Empty Property Elements' Example 5
what's gained with this "abbreviation" but maybe that "the most horrible
markup usage award" or something?!
I'm not saying RDF hasn't got a future since I'm not really
using/understanding it fully yet but isn't the syntax just too liberal?
Toni Uusitalo
"And I wish that I was made of stone
So that I would not have to see
A beauty impossible to define
A beauty impossible to believe"
- Nick Cave (Brompton Oratory) - romanticist?
"There are lots of myths that people have around issues of beauty and
attraction, and part of the issue is to stop thinking about things in terms
of myth, but to use the tools of neuroscience, and start dissecting and
understanding how things actually function," said Dr. Hans Breiter, a
psychiatrist and co-author of the study."
- The Brain Is Stimulated by Beauty, Study Finds - abcnews.com - scientist?
|
