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

RE: Trying to understand valid RDF [long]

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 05:35:12 -0500 (EST)
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: <Ian.Stuart@ed.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111020533460.6738-100000@tux.w3.org>

yes, I thought I'd remembered to mention that rdf:value could be an
appropriate replacement for my:content.  Fair point!

Dan


On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>
> >         <my:field
> > 	   my:name = "issn"
> >            my:content="0001-3072" />
>
> Dan, Ian,
>
> This does, of course, result in a a subgraph
> that perhaps is workable, but only to applications
> which understand the 'my:content' semantics.
>
> Such a treatment precludes the use of generic
> tools which may be looking for either unqualified
> literal property values, or qualified values
> where the value content is defined via the
> generic rdf:value property.
>
> Perhaps the following would be a bit more "generic":
>
>   <my:field my:name="issn" rdf:value="0001-3072"/>
>
> This provides the 'my:name' specific qualification while
> keeping the actual content organized according to
> generic RDF constructs and semantics, which might
> be a bit more flexible over the long run.
>
> Eh?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 05:35:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT