W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: RDF Schema confusion in RDF Primer

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 18:54:24 -0700
Message-ID: <006701c1f3d7$ca8c11e0$7245a640@odysseus2001>
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Frank,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
To: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: RDF Schema confusion in RDF Primer


> Garret Wilson wrote:
> > That's correct for *usage* of the RDF vocabulary being defined, but it's
not
> > clear (and was not clear in the old RDF Schema specification) that in
order
> > for IDs to actually work for *defining* the RDF vocabulary, an
> > xml:base="http://www.w3.org/2000/03/example/vehicles" will have to be
> > present.
>
> My reading would have been that what this example omitted in the
> original Schema document was a qualification along the lines of
> "assuming the schema was located at
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/example/vehicles..." (was XML Base in
> existence when the original Schema document was finalized?).  Given that
> qualification, I don't believe xml:base *has* to be present

Sure---either put in xml:base, or make sure the schema is located at
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/example/vehicles . I prefer the xml:base option
for various reasons, and the fact that the document has to be located at
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/example/vehicles may be hard for the reader to
remember. Furthermore, what if an RDF processor instead retrieved the
document from http://w3.org/2000/03/example/vehicles (if both www.w3.org and
w3.org are aliases), or even some W3C mirror, such
http://mydomain.com/mirrors/w3c/2000/03/example/vehicles ?

You're right: the primer will be correct as long as it indicates that either
the location or xml:base be specified. I prefer the latter.

Cheers,

Garret
Received on Saturday, 4 May 2002 21:55:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT