Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:10:17 -0400 Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...> wrote: > > > jonathan@o... (Jonathan Borden) writes: > > >FWIW, RelaxNG can be used to define the RDF/XML syntax. > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-RELAXNG-Schema (the > > >schema has some errors, but is close). Note that when viewed as > > >compact RelaxNG, the RDF/XML syntax doesn't seem _all that_ complex. > > > > Cool - what are the errors? > > > > The spec doesn't list them. > > I think > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0274.html . > Somehow the "- (local:* " got deleted from the initial stabs at this, but > I'm unsure if that was intentional. No, it was accidental, I'll restore it. (The schema comes with no guarantees :) As far as any XML schema language is appropriate for general RDF/XML with it's open use of XML Namespaces, RelaxNG is the one I'd suggest is most appropriate (compared to for example W3C XML Schemas which is more of a closed/complete DTD style). For a specific RDF application written in RDF/XML, choosing to constrain the multiple abbreviations it provides and namespaces allowed, you can clearly write a much more useful specific XML schema. But the subject is RelaxNG, so I'll just say that I find it useful and the compact syntax in particular, very readable. Dave
|
