On 15 Jul 2008, at 13:05, Mark Birbeck wrote:
Hi Bijan,
One funny aspect of RDF/XML, as I understand the history, is that
some of
the quirkier aspects of its design stemmed from the goal of being
embedable
in HTML (hence all the alternative forms) in a legacy browser
compatible
way.
That's interesting, I'd not heard that.
Dave mentions it in:
http://www.dajobe.org/2003/05/iswc/paper.html
Of course, as I wrote to Taylor, a reason for having text or xml as
element content is to allow fall back on literals (hence not *only*
attributes for properties).
I did think though, that one of the things about the RDF/XML structure
was an attempt to enable many XML layouts to be interpreted as RDF.
But obviously that's enormously difficult.
[snip]
I don't think this was a design goal at the time. The idea that RDF/
XML might be made to "look like" XML stems, afaik, from the great RSS
1.0 debates and was applied to WSDL by Uche:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-rdf/
but didn't get much further.
GRDDL is sorta a resurgence of that idea ;)
Cheers,
Bijan "Sad to have become a Grand Ole Fart of RDF/XML" Parsia.
