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 ;) -Rinke > > > 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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 March 2008 18:24:59 GMT