Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:00:52 +0200
Toni Uusitalo <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
That's the doc I edit about RDF/XML.
> 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 "...
Yes, I wrote that too.
> 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?!
"horrible" is a form of emotional response to XML rather
than a technical critcism. I find qnames used in attribute values
a disaster, but it seems "good" XML style for several XML syntaxes.
I scare-quote "good" also since that is also a value-laden measure of
> 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
Yes, the RDF/XML syntax has too many abbreviated forms.
So the obvious answer is to not use them all.
Personally I'd say there is no need to use property
attributes - stick with just property elements form. It's got other
advantages too, such as being able to write down human languages
(xml:lang) and datatypes (rdf:datatype) on the property elements.
- RDF syntax
- From: Toni Uusitalo <firstname.lastname@example.org>