- From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 22:21:07 +0100
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
- CC: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
On 12.12.2011 19:09, Henry Story wrote: > > On 12 Dec 2011, at 18:32, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > >> On 12/12/2011 05:45 PM, Henry Story wrote: >>> >>> On 12 Dec 2011, at 15:24, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> having a look at the WebID spec, I spotted a few mistakes in the RDF/XML >>>> example: >>>> >>>> * the rdfs namespace is not declared >>>> * the closing tag for rdfs:label misses the leading '/' >>>> * the datatypes xsd:hexBinary and xsd:integer should be expanded URIs, >>>> not CURIEs >>> >>> very well spotted, Pierre. Thanks a lot. We have updated the spec here >>> >>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/add4f836470d >>> >>> WE fixed this in today's meeting >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/12/12-webid-minutes.html >>> >>> and we should have a new spec with all the latest changes out today. >>> >>> Does one really have to use full URLs for datatypes? That's really a bit lame... >> >> well, unless I missed something the RDF/XML recommendation, I'm pretty >> sure you have to... >> >> And I agree, it is a bit lame... > > That would be one point in favour of using Turtle as the other MUST format, (and drop rdf/xml) > Though we would need quite a few other serious reasons to do something like that. Another reason is that RDF/XML can't encode all posiible RDF graphs (it is related with XML namespaces restrictions). Jeremy J. Carroll in [1] write that there are other unresolved syntactic issues, collections, literals as subjects, blank nodes as predicates, reification and quoting. [1] https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-268.pdf Best regards, Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 21:21:35 UTC