- From: Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>
- Date: 2011年12月31日 10:30:17 +0700
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Message-ID: <86fwg1bepi.fsf@gray.siamics.net>
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes: Looks like that the first paragraph of the message I've sent has got mangled away. (I vaguely recall that the inn-workers@ mailing list had a similar or the same problem with the message bodies starting with whitespace. IIRC, one of the folks there attributed to Ecartis, and ISTR that it has disappeared after they've switched to Mailman.) The paragraph was: I'm curious, given that with RDFa and the like I can easily introduce a "resource", described within the RDF framework and using the vocabularies of my choice, why would I prefer, e. g., <docbook:application>Foo</docbook:application> in my DocBook XML document over something along the lines of the following? > <docbook:phrase > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:foo="http://example.org/classes/" > about="http://gnuplot.info/" > property="dc:title" > ><docbook:phrase > property="rdf:type" > resource="foo:SoftwareApplication" > />Gnuplot</docbook:phrase> > (Sans that it's more verbose, and that DocBook's ‘phrase’ > doesn't allow for ‘about’, etc.) > TIA. And HNY. -- FSF associate member #7257
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2011 03:31:08 UTC