Great! If this is the case (and I think it is, except for content models, as
you noted), I think we can move on to other issues.
I'd like to see the RDF-aware on this list continue to make input whenever we
stray into territory that seems impossible to reconcile with a transformation
into RDF, but this 'RDF in a Nutshell' gives us a useful guideline for future
development.
Does it seem reasonable to proceed, keeping a lookout for RDF without chaining
ourselves to its (apparently unstable) syntax?
Let me (or the list) know. I think we're ready.
Tim also wrote:
>I think the only thing in DTD's that are not trivially RDF-able are
>content models. They *are* RDF-able, but you have to use some of the
>"Seq" machinery, which I find awkward. In fact *every* attempt so far
>(the old DSD stuff, XML-Data, etc) to express content models in XML has
>come up verbose and unreadable compared to good ol' 8879 DTD notation.
>I think there's a better way, and want to see what xml-dev can come up
>with.
Sounds like a good challenge. Let's get to work!
Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies