This slide shows the RDF generated by RDFAuthor for the same example. A simpler form is given in text here:
<?xml version='1.0'?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#' xmlns:RDFNsId1='http://www.w3.org/XMLR/'> <rdf:Description rdf:about='theDocument'> <xmlr:includes rdf:resource='inc3'/> <xmlr:displays rdf:resource='image1'/> <xmlr:includes rdf:resource='inc1'/> <xmlr:includes rdf:resource='inc2'/> <xmlr:conformsTo> <rdf:Description rdf:about='DTD'> <xmlr:includes rdf:resource='dtdFragment'/> <xmlr:uses rdf:resource='entity1'/> <xmlr:uses rdf:resource='entity2'/> <xmlr:uses rdf:resource='entity3'/> </rdf:Description> </xmlr:conformsTo> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>
We can imagine a diferent universe, one in which the namespaces here were actually part of XML/R, and so we didn't need to put them on every element. For example, XML/R could include a xml:meta element for containing metadata like this. We then derive a simpler form of RDF:
<xml:meta> <includes resource='inc3'/> <displays resource='image1'/> <includes resource='inc1'/> <includes resource='inc2'/> <conformsTo> <Description about='DTD'> <includes resource='dtdFragment'/> <uses resource='entity1'/> <uses resource='entity2'/> <uses resource='entity3'/> </Description> </conformsTo> </RDF>
Note that this still happens to be RDF-compatible markup, even though it doesn't say so anywhere.