I said:
> The triples from this look OK to me, but I admit I'm pretty
> much out of my depth here and I think you really need to ask
> an RDF/XML expert this question!
I found this
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Aug/0228.html
on www-rdf-interest, and given that I think the RDF/XML syntax was
changed to use rdf:datatype rather than rdf:type for literal datatypes,
I think my example is probably OK.
Though as others suggest on that thread (and as you indicate in your
question), it's probably not the best way to go!
Pete
|