[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDDL/RDF - no RDF tax?
Mike Champion wrote: > That's very human readable ... but RDF-challenged as I am, I don't > understand how it uses RDF. Where is all the cruft that people complain > about? :-) As I've said many times RDF doesn't *have* to be complicated, unfortunately, RDF all too often get's way too complicated and that's where sensible folks get thrown off the boat. that XML makes the following assertions: <#foo> rdf:type rddl:resource . <#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/nature> . <#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/purpose> . <#foo> rddl:nature <http://example.org/L.dtd> . <#foo> rddl:prose "<p>A description of the 'L' language>"^^rdf:XMLLiteral . where that last one is the new typed literal syntax where a string literal is separated from a type QName or URI by "^^". > > Would a "native" RDF processor understand the assertions in there, or would > a RDDL->RDF filter be needed? > A processor would only need to know where to look in the RDDL document for the XML to be parsed as RDF. I've suggested an attribute on the top element: <html rddl:annotation-ns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> which would tell a parser to ignore elements in the XHTML namespace, and start parsing as RDF elements in any other namespace e.g. <rddl:resource>. An *actual* RDF document would look like: <rdf:RDF> <rddl:resource>... <rddl:resource>... </rdf:RDF> so call it a RDDL->RDF filter but its a darn simple one. On the other hand browsers are pretty forgiving in what they'll accept as HTML if you give the document a .html extension. For example (this works in IE5.5 at least): http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2-example.html That document is real RDF. Jonathan
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|