Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In an earlier posting it was clarified (to me) how a resource type
property could be used as the resource element, i.e.,
<rdf:Description [attrs]>
<rdf:type resoure="foo">
[other properties]
</rdf:Description>
can be equivalently expressed as:
<foo>
[other properties]
</foo>
This morning I read in the RDF spec that you can associate multiple type
properties to a resource, e.g.,
<rdf:Description [attrs]>
<rdf:type resoure="foo">
<rdf:type resoure="bar">
[other properties]
</rdf:Description>
If I wanted to create the alternate syntax as I did above, which type
would I migrate up? Would the equivalent syntax be:
<foo>
<rdf:type resoure="bar">
[other properties]
</foo>
or
<bar>
<rdf:type resoure="foo">
[other properties]
</bar>
or both?
I apologize for not stating my question very well. I am at a loss for
the correct terminology. What is the correct terminology for morphing
the syntax from:
<rdf:Description [attrs]>
<rdf:type resoure="foo">
[other properties]
</rdf:Description>
to:
<foo>
[other properties]
</foo>
How about: "The type property has migrated up to resource element"?
/Roger
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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...)
|
