W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: OWL XML serialization

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:24:46 +0100
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <57F1D754-B2F4-4AA6-8681-3C7A5EF65DA6@uva.nl>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 5 mrt 2008, at 19:23, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 1) What is the rationale behind using owl11xml:URI instead of  
>> xml:id attributes on XML elements?
> I would think that xml:id is inappropriate for several reasons:
> 	1) we aren't trying to identify elements; these are application  
> level not XML level identifiers;
> 	2) the value of an xml:id is an NCName
> 		http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#processing
> 	thus can't capture all URIs
> 	3) the ultimate type is "id" which may have some consequences for  
> the PSVI.
> 	4) the uniqueness constraint is irrelevant so confusing

Thanks, indeed Jeremy corrected me wrt. this as well.

>> It seems natural to adopt the standard way of identifying XML  
>> elements.
> [snip]
> Well, my guess on what an XML weenie might say is that since we  
> *aren't* identifying XML elements (but OWL classes, properties,  
> etc.) that rather than being natural, it would be A Wrongness. Your  
> inner XML weeniemeter might read differently :)

Thanks again, didn't know I had one... will try to keep it in check in  
the future ;)


> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 18:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC