Hi,
I'm new to the list (more on that later), and so may be asking a
question whose answer has a history I'm not aware of, but why the "try
as hard as possible to not be RDF but still retain the model" format?
What value does this ...
<dcxm:descriptionSet
xmlns:my="http://my.example.org/terms/"
xmlns:dcxm="http://dublincore.org/xml/dc-xml-min/2006/09/18/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dcxm:description
dcxm:resourceURI="http://dublincore.org/pages/home">
<dc:title>DCMI Home Page</dc:title>
<!-- Reference to related description using label -->
<dc:publisher
dcxm:descriptionRef="DCMI"/>
</dcxm:description>
... have over this?
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/pages/home">
<dc:title>DCMI Home Page</dc:title>
<!-- Reference to related description using label -->
<dc:publisher rdf:resource="DCMI"/>
</dcxm:description>
They are, after all, structurally the same, and creating an XML schema
to validate one is no more difficult than the other (notwithstanding
XML Schema's lack of support for attribute-based validation and
unordered content models; limitations that RELAX NG does not have).
Why, in other words, not just create an RDF/XML profile that achieves
the same effect (easily processed with XML tools)?
Bruce
|