Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote: >But it is easy to tell if something can easily be made into RDF. Here's >the test: if what you are building can be expressed as a bunch of 3-tuples > >(object, propertyname, propertyvalue) > >then it's RDF-able. Otherwise it's not. Great! If this is the case (and I think it is, except for content models, as you noted), I think we can move on to other issues. I'd like to see the RDF-aware on this list continue to make input whenever we stray into territory that seems impossible to reconcile with a transformation into RDF, but this 'RDF in a Nutshell' gives us a useful guideline for future development. Does it seem reasonable to proceed, keeping a lookout for RDF without chaining ourselves to its (apparently unstable) syntax? Let me (or the list) know. I think we're ready. Tim also wrote: >I think the only thing in DTD's that are not trivially RDF-able are >content models. They *are* RDF-able, but you have to use some of the >"Seq" machinery, which I find awkward. In fact *every* attempt so far >(the old DSD stuff, XML-Data, etc) to express content models in XML has >come up verbose and unreadable compared to good ol' 8879 DTD notation. >I think there's a better way, and want to see what xml-dev can come up >with. Sounds like a good challenge. Let's get to work! Simon St.Laurent Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
