W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

Re: Formation of RDF terms

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:27:09 -0000
Message-ID: <009001c0872e$fd963960$4ca401d5@z5n9x1>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[part of my "pointing out the obvious" series...]

Dan Brickley wrote:-
> urn:uuid:3242340623324314890324 and suchlike are fine
> names for RDF predicates (albeit non-representable in RDF
> 1.0 XML syntax).

The problem is that some applications may understand a certain URN; granted
most will not. This is true for any non-dereferencable URI. Even when you
have something that you can dereference, there is no guarantee that the
resource will be in a grokable format (e.g. N3 to an XML processor is not
going to be of any use to it). But then, why use URIs for predicates
anyway? All properties have to be defined somewhere, otherwise they are
meaningless.

Anything in the RDF M&S is going to be pre-assumed, but anything else is
just proprietary. Thus, it dosen't matter what form the alias takes on as
long as when you have reconstructed the URI it points to whatever it is
supposed to point at.

Incidentally, there are systems that parse URL (namespaces) by
dereferencing them; they tend to work, but I have not yet seen one that
uses multi-formats... maybe RDDL will help to solve that problem (point it
to XML RDF, point it to N3...)?

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://infomesh.net/2001/01/n3terms/#> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :homepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 19:29:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT