[rdfweb-dev] RDF all the way on XML.com
nmg at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Sun Aug 24 12:45:03 UTC 2003
Dan Brickley <danbri at w3.org> writes:
>> There's an existing precedent for this approach; the Gene Ontology
>> Consortium, PRISM and RSS 1.0 all effectively have simplified
>> profiles of RDF/XML for the reasons you give.
> The problem being that they all have different simplified
> profiles. Also that this technique works best for data formats that
> are basically homogenous, and not open to unexpected extensions of
> any substance.
Do the more XML-minded FOAF (or RSS) consumers handle arbitrary
> I think we should do a simplified syntax for FOAF, but do it as an XHTML
> profile, ie. a convention for annotating your homepage markup with
> enough info to allow RDF to be extracted. Dan Connolly showed a design
> for this 3 years back,
> http://rdfweb.org/pipermail/rdfweb-dev/2000-July/010125.html based on my
> wishlist from the 1st message to this list. Probably time to revisit the
This is an interesting approach, and one that I've played around with
briefly as well. My worry here is the interaction between on-the-fly
generation of FOAF and digital signatures. How do you sign the file if
you don't know what it's going to look like until you've generated it?
> I am, on the other hand, interested to try out alternate RDF syntaxes on
> FOAF. For example, see http://esw.w3.org/topic/SpotOfDrama for
> experiments with unstriped syntax. (I think I circulated that already)
> These are completely general, and should work for all RDF, not just
> FOAF, so seem to me to be a better use of coding and spec-writing time.
Nice trick, and that could be made to work as a preprocessor step to
avoid having to build DTD-ness into RDF parsers.
Nick Gibbins nmg at ecs.soton.ac.uk
IAM (Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia) tel: +44 (0) 23 80598347
Electronics and Computer Science fax: +44 (0) 23 80592865
University of Southampton
More information about the foaf-dev