• To: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@l...>
• Subject: Re: RDF syntax
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:07:45 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <6.0.0.22.1.20031102202644.01f12d70@p...>
• References: <6.0.0.22.1.20031102202644.01f12d70@p...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

Toni Uusitalo scripsit:

> But I was shocked when I started browsing through RDF syntax spec 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030905/
> and came to
> 2.5 Property Attributes
> [snip]
> compared to section 2.4 Empty Property Elements' Example 5
> what's gained with this "abbreviation" but maybe that "the most horrible 
> markup usage award" or something?!

The idea is that you can interpret a document as RDF whether it uses
elements or attributes, or indeed child elements for some properties
and attributes for others.  The whole point of the syntactic flexibility
is to allow fairly varied kinds of documents to be syntactically valid RDF.

-- 
"You know, you haven't stopped talking          John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been           http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle."           jcowan@r...
        --Rufus T. Firefly                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

• References:
  • RDF syntax
    • From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@l...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ASN.1 is an XML Schema Language (Fix those lists!) and Binary XML not needed...
• Next by Date: Re: ASN.1 is an XML Schema Language (Fix those lists!) and Binary XML not needed...
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF syntax
• Next by thread: Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread