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

RDF syntax

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RDF syntax
• From: Toni Uusitalo <toni.uusitalo@l...>
• Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:00:52 +0200

I read RDF primer stuff, at least first part of warning commonly printed on 
instruction manuals: "you must READ and UNDERSTAND the instruction manual" 
is now true in my case when it comes to RDF ;)

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
where it says:
"When a property element's content is string literal, it may be possible to 
use it as an XML attribute on the containing node element. This can be done 
for multiple properties on the same node element only if the property 
element name is not repeated "...

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?!

I'm not saying RDF hasn't got a future since I'm not really 
using/understanding it fully yet but isn't the syntax just too liberal?











Toni Uusitalo

"And I wish that I was made of stone
So that I would not have to see
A beauty impossible to define
A beauty impossible to believe"
- Nick Cave (Brompton Oratory) - romanticist?

"There are lots of myths that people have around issues of beauty and 
attraction, and part of the issue is to stop thinking about things in terms 
of myth, but to use the tools of neuroscience, and start dissecting and 
understanding how things actually function," said Dr. Hans Breiter, a 
psychiatrist and co-author of the study."
- The Brain Is Stimulated by Beauty, Study Finds - abcnews.com - scientist?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDF syntax
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: RDF syntax
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: RDF syntax
    • From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@b...>
  • Re: RDF syntax
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: E55 Substantive
• Next by Date: Re: InfoPath Digital Signature controversy?
• Previous by thread: ANN: nxslt (.NET XSLT Command Line Utility) version 1.3
• Next by thread: Re: RDF syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread