[rdfweb-dev] Re: indicating meta and type?

[Phillip Pearson]

> > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="person">
> > <im:mesengerAccount>
> > <im:Account>
> > <im:AccountType rdf:resource="(etc)/MsnAccount"/>
> > <im:login>login name</im:login>
> > </im:Account>
> > </im:mesengerAccount>
> > </rdf:Description>
> >
> > Starting to get a bit verbose, isn't it ... hmm.
> 
> Yes, and that's always something to avoid. RDF proponents understand the
> semantic value to the verbosity. But to everyone else it looks like a ton of
> baggage that doesn't "do anything" for them. So being simple is worth
> considering.

BTW, is the following (a snippet of trackback info) valid RDF? To
people who don't know about the semantic requrements, this sort of
format should be a bit friendlier. I can't see any indication of
whether values are URI refs or literals, but it seems to parse fine
with rdflib:

<!--
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<rdf:Description
rdf:about="http://www.truthlaidbear.com/001568.html"
trackback:ping="http://www.truthlaidbear.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/345"
dc:title="A Betrayal of Faith"
dc:identifier="http://www.truthlaidbear.com/001568.html"
dc:subject="Main"
dc:description="For some reason, a comment left on my &apos;Nixon was Unavailable&apos; post below by new blogger Diane L continues to..."
dc:creator="N.Z. Bear"
dc:date="2002-12-0108:21:08-08:00" />
</rdf:RDF>
-->

If that's OK, you could say something like:

<rdf:Description rdf:ID="person">
<im:mesengerAccount im:AccountType="(etc)/MsnAccount" im:login="login name"/>
</rdf:Description>

... which is a bit nicer. Is it valid? Presumably this would come
out as the triples:

<#person> <im:messengerAccount> <#_acct>
<#_acct> <im:AccountType> <(etc)/MsnAccount>
<#_acct> <im:login> "login name"

Cheers,
Phil