RDF considered optional
paul at prescod.net
Thu Mar 18 14:30:31 GMT 1999
David Megginson wrote:
> > I took it the same way. But doesn't that violate the principle of
> > XML as being self-describing?
> First, there is no such published principle for XML itself, though the
> Namespaces spec provides an infrastructure for such a thing.
Debatably the principle of self-describing-ness is encoded in both the XML
declaration (unfortunately optional!) and the DOCTYPE declaration.
> Second, it in no way violates it, because if you recognise the
> namespaces/elements being used, you can still figure out that you're
> dealing with RDF (and if not, fat lot of good they'll do you anyway).
Wouldn't it be useful for a generic RDF processor (e.g. viewer, search
engine) to be able to recognize RDF in arbitrary documents?
Personally, I do feel that the optional RDF element is a bad idea. I have
had many bad experiences with "implied declarations" like <!DOCTYPE HTML
...> and <!SGML ...>. "Say what you are!" In this case the obvious way for
RDF elements to say that they are RDF elements without enforcing a
particular vocabulary would be to use attributes -- but that sounds like a
smelly old SGML-ish idea.
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
"If you were casting Bob Kane's character by disposition, you would
never in a million years think Michael Keaton or George Clooney.
Good God: George Clooney? If you were casting Bob Kane's Batman, even
the likes of Tim Roth or Christopher Walken would be much too
lighthearted to play this demonic avenger."
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev