Thanks Pete,
yes, my thoughts are in the direction you're pointing.
1. It's the rdf:resource attribute - which behaves special
in RDF/XML.
2. I think something like "appropriate literal value" is
intended. But "appropriate literal" might be different
from the xml-simple type "string".
The second item an xml-schema binding of RDF/XML-simple could
address (parseType) - seems out of scope right now.
For item 1:
4.3 Example in the guide-draft suggests an XML-schema, you could
roundtrip thru RDF-simpleDC. Travelling the other way round would
map different RDF-models into one.
In this sense RDF-simpleDC would be more general than xml-guide-simple
one.
When i then look at dc.xsd there is an attributeGroup xlink:metadataLink
specified for the CCP, dc:source/dc:relation elements, which is not reflected in the abstract model
for dcsimple - nor in the one of DC with qualifiers.
So i'm don't quite get, what the xml-guide-dcsimple actually is.
Seems there is something aside of literal string values, what is important.
Why the xlink's have no arcrole ?? Is there a relation with "Harvesting RDF
statements from xlinks" ??
[By the way: Why the "qualified" version doesn't
use xml-schema typing and instead introduces
new dcxml xml-attributes?
I'm rather puzzled about the "xml id" attribute mentioned in the draft.
I can't find an explanation for dc-elements with the "xml id" attribute in the draft.
some more miracles in xml-schema? ]
rs
|