XSchema Question 1: RDF

[Tim Bray]

At 10:02 PM 6/1/98 UT, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>We need to get the RDF discussion moving again so we can move on to specific 
>syntax.

RDF is painfully simple, conceptually.  And Lisa is correct in saying that
the syntax is (IMHO unnecessarily) kinda ugly; I think there are good
reasons to expect improvement.

But it is easy to tell if something can easily be made into RDF.  Here's
the test: if what you are building can be expressed as a bunch of 3-tuples

(object, propertyname, propertyvalue)

then it's RDF-able.  Otherwise it's not.

E.g. 

(document, rootType, HTML)
(elementType IMG, takesAttribute, SRC)
(attribute SRC, valueType, URI)
(attribute BORDER, defaultValue, "1")
(entity copy, value, "©")
(entity xml-spec, systemID, "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml")

are all easily RDF-able.

I think the only thing in DTD's that are not trivially RDF-able are
content models.  They *are* RDF-able, but you have to use some of the
"Seq" machinery, which I find awkward.  In fact *every* attempt so far
(the old DSD stuff, XML-Data, etc) to express content models in XML has
come up verbose and unreadable compared to good ol' 8879 DTD notation.
I think there's a better way, and want to see what xml-dev can come up 
with. -Tim


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)