Well, you could have a convention that the property refers to the enclosing
element. This would limit the power, but I'm not actually convinced that
that would be a bad thing. One of the greatest things about web-based
applications, for example, is that they *don't* have Turing machine power,
restricting the domain and resulting in a (relatively) consistent usage
paradigm.
If that isn't convincing, you could also attribute the role element used in
the annotation (the enclosing element could still be the default):
<element which="movie/director">
<role referent="movie">dc:Creator</role>
</element>
There's your graph...
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 6:30 PM
> To: Matthew Gertner
> Cc: 'John Cowan';
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] What is RDF for? (Was: What are Web
> Services for?)
>
>
> Matthew Gertner wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> > <element which="movie/name">
> > <role>dc:Title</role>
> > </element>
> >
> > <element which="movie/director">
> > <role>dc:Creator</roel>
> > </element>
>
> But the movie/director is the dc:Creator *of what*? You need
> to build a
> graph, not merely an annotated tree. If you build a graph then you are
> essentially mapping into the RDF model which is what I
> suggested in the
> message that John Cowan responded to.
>
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> > The RDF people probably have to figure out how to
> > allow ANY arbitrary XML syntax to be mapped into the RDF model.
>
> Paul Prescod
>
