W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Good citizen

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:47:48 +1000
Message-ID: <004201c141b9$4ec20d60$4bc8a8c0@AlletteSystems.com>
To: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>
 
> I don't think RDF/XML 1.0 isn't really a markup language, since 
> it really just excanges triples and doesn't mark up anything.

Yes.

Acually, I wonder whether there might be someway of having our current cake
and eating  it too.

Perhaps if, rather than banning unqualified names in RDF, the refactoring WG
instead made the rule that
 "Unqualified information items in an RDF document do not form part of the
  RDF information in a document. They can be used as part of the XML 
  information set of a document, but they may not survive round-tripping
  through an RDF system which imports the document. RDF systems 
  can be assumed to strip information items with unqualified names.
  Any rdf-namespace information items contained at any level by an 
  unqualifed element are not significant as part of the RDF information
  of the encompassing document or branch."

I think this allows RDF to be a "good citizen" in the XML world: if people
have unqualified names, for whatever reason, it won't break RDF extraction,
and the reach of RDF into the XML information set is clear.
  
Can I suggest that the refactoring group reconsider their namespace
decision?  It is fair enough that RDF requires namespaces, but it goes
too far to require that an XML document can contain only RDF
information.  We need to be able to add annotations anywhere, and
not just RDF annotations.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 05:42:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT