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

RE: Formation of RDF terms

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:32:28 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010129182220.04362ec0@pop3.connectfree.uk.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 07:55 AM 1/29/01 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>so clearly the 'concept' or term 'unsignedInt' has a URI assigned by the XML
>Schema spec of:  http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt.
>
>IMHO, it is not reasonable to have RDF and (e.g.) XML Schema assign a
>different URI to the same thing.

I agree it's not reasonable, but I don't think it's invalid.

I think there are three difficult areas:

(1) RDF-syntax is not internally consistent with these things:  in some 
cases ID values are simply concatenated with some URI;  in other cases they 
are treated as fragment identifiers attached to a URI.

(2) As you note, RDF-syntax practice doesn't sit comfortably with related 
XML practices.

(3) As noted elsewhere, recently, RDF treatment of resources differs from 
Web treatment of resources -- an RDF resource is not necessarily a web 
resource.

Like Dave, I happen to think it's the model that really matters, but having 
these syntactic oddities sometimes makes it more difficult to discuss the 
model clearly.  (And I think point (3) is a model-related problem.)

#g
Received on Monday, 29 January 2001 13:52:40 GMT

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