[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RDF : Headless Triples syntax

• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:51:41 +0100
• Cc: "Xml-Dev" <xml-dev@l...>,"RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <200211180240.VAA11433@m...>

>> I can understand the need for an <rdf:RDF> wall around embedded
>RDF in the
>> current syntax (to keep its Gothic structure out of sight). If
>however the
>> RDF was restricted to (decapitated) one-layer statements, I reckon an
>> <rdf:D> ha-ha is adequate.
>
>Actually, rdf:RDF isn't required, and Reuters Health doesn't use it.

Fair enough. I suppose I was overlaying my own (non-standard)
interpretation.

The recommendation of WG to eschew embedding in XHTML and link in the RDF
instead (see Dave Becketts comments at [1], Sean Palmer's discussion of
approaches to embedding at [2]), yet the obvious benefit of being able to
embed would suggest that this is an issue that is likely to keep
resurfacing.

I must say btw that the Reuters Health data is an excellent example of how
RDF/XML needn't be ugly.

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0039.html
[2] http://infomesh.net/2002/rdfinhtml/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: how much complexity is unavoidable?
• Next by Date: Re: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Previous by thread: Re: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Next by thread: Re: RDF : Headless Triples syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread