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

Re: Formation of RDF terms

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:25:03 -0500
Message-ID: <038001c087d6$1289dd70$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote:



>
> OK, so what about:
>
>  <rdf:RDF xmlns:urn="urn:uuid:" xmlns:rdf="#RDF-whatever">
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
>     <urn:ab2d-d45c-e3d1-afg1>Wow, it worked.</urn:ab2d-d45c-e3d1-afg1>
>    </rdf:Description>
>  </rdf:RDF>
>

I haven't looked at whether the string "urn:uuid:" itself is a legal URI, if
it is, then that is ok. The point remains however that even if some
"urn:uuid"s can be made into qnames, they cannot all be reliably made into
qnames and hence serialization as RDF Syntax 1.0 is broken.

Whatever the rule is for predicates ought be the same for subjects (e.g.
typedNode).

(see http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/QNameToURI.htm )

While we are at it, such a rule could allow a 'shorthand' use of qname as a
rdf:resource value:

e.g.

<foo:bar id="http://yada.com">
    <foo:baz rdf:resource="foo:bop" />
</foo:bar>


-Jonathan
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 15:39:01 GMT

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