Pete Johnston wrote:
> I wonder whether another possible consideration here is that _if_
> implementers who (for whatever reason) are resistant to an RDF-based XML
> syntax _can_ be persuaded to adopt a _standard_ convention for their non-RDF
> XML - and I'd like to believe they can, provided that, as Andy says, it is
> "intuitive" (though I accept that is a subjective element!) - , then their
> instances could be subject to a simple standard transform which generates a
> fully conformant RDF/XML version. That could even be provided, as, say, an
> XSLT transform, along with Andy's guidelines.
Hm, what about the following:
1. use RDF! If you want to use XML tools
(DTD, XML Schema, etc.) then
2. use RDF that conforms to a DTD, or
XML Schema. If you are afraid of
tags like <rdf:RDF> (Sorry, couldn't
resist ;-), then
3. use more "intuitive" XML but provide
a XSLT transformation that can transform
the XML to RDF/XML.
This would require that the XML is well-defined
(DTD, XML Schema) so that the transformation always
works.
Perhaps one should include a link to the transformation
in every instance. That could define a general approach:
use whatever you want, but provide for a transformation.
Best regards,
Stefan
|