• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:00:40 -0500

I've posted a document for discussion.

http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2

which represents a proposal for a version of RDDL using RDF.

<rddl:resource ID="XSD">
    <rddl:title>XML Schema</rddl:title>
    <rddl:nature resource="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"/>
    <rddl:purpose
resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"/>
    <rddl:related resource="http://example.org/L.xsd"/>
    <rddl:prose>
        <p>An XML Schema for the L language .</p>
    </rddl:prose>
</rddl:resource>

hopefully the above XML is self explanatory -- in which case this is human
readable! I think it is more readable than the XLink version.

Note that this example represents a distillation of discussions on the TAG
list.

Jonathan

http://www.jonathanborden-md.com
http://www.erieneurosurgery.com
http://www.openhealth.org

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
• Previous by thread: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread