Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Shelley Powers wrote: > Yours is the second interpretation of the model showing v as a resource > defined elsewhere. I wonder, though, if a naive person with no exposure to > RDF/XML would understand to do this? I wonder why you'd expect them to. > For instance, another interpretation > could be to nest the second resource directly within the first. Would this > nesting be illegal? It's perfectly proper XML, but is it proper RPV? What matters is whether it reduces to proper RDF. > For something like reification -- how would a naive user know to interpret > the reified statement as a set of assertions about a statement rather than > direct statements? We know, but then, we know the RDF model. This whole > thing is based on a naive user being able to read the XML without having to > know the model. They wouldn't. When expert users can't agree on an interpretation of what it (RDF reification) means, naive users are going to be at a dead loss. XML assumes you know something about the domain of what's being marked up. RDF/XML is not distinct in this regard. Bill de hÓra
|
