W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Referring to resources in RDF attributes

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:14:30 +0100
Message-ID: <3AE01A16.512E96B6@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> [-cc www-rdf-comments; I wonder how much crossposting is wise;
> chairs? any opinions?]

When an issue is added to the issues list, a reference to the message
triggering it is also added.  Sometimes there is some immediate
discussion on rdf-comments clarifying the issue, maybe stating initial
reactions.  I think this is helpful and a reasonable place to have that
conversation.

A possible guideline is:

Discussion with raiser of issue on clarification/ initial disposition of
the issue should be on RDF Comments.  Once issue ID generated, take it
to WG or interest lists.

It was good the way you included the issue reference in your message.

It would be good to adopt some convention of including references to
issues in messages so that we can dig them out more easily later from
archive.  Does anyone know enough about how search engines work to
suggest a good way to do that.  Google didn't do what I wanted when I
searched for

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

is gave me all the references to the whole issue document.

Maybe if we just include the localname part: 
rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

> 
> Graham Klyne wrote:
> >
> > A possible RDF issue?
> 
> Certainly an RDF usability and adoption issue, in my experience.
> 
> In hopes of backlink services, I'll use the name
> Brian just gave to this issue:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values


Including reference is a Good thing to do from point of view of later
searching the archive.

 Does anyone know enough about how search engines work to suggest a good
way to do that.  Google didn't do what I wanted when I searched for

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

is gave me all the references to the whole issue document.

Maybe if we just include the localname part: 
rdfms-qnames-as-attrib-values

> 
>   1. the namespace name. This isn't RDF 1.0 syntax.
>   It's convertable to RDF 1.0 syntax (using XSLT;
>   we should provide a transformation if we persue this)
>   but it's not RDF 1.0 syntax.

Changing the namespace is a significant step.  Is there any way to
avoid that?

Brian
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 07:14:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:03 EDT