W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Q to implementers: Resource identifiers - XML Namesand/or(concatenated) URIs? (was RE: rdfs.isDefinedBy...)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:36:11 +0300
To: "ext Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B92E4240.16AC5%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-06-12 15:51, "ext Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net> wrote:

> 
> [Patrick Stickler
>> ...
>> In RDF/XML, qnames are not *real* qnames. They are just URIs
>> pretending to be or masquerading as qnames.
>> 
>> <soapbox>
>> We will never be able to fully reconcile qnames and URIs, nor
>> should we even bother to try. All we need to do is respect the
>> full structure and semantics of qnames in our RDF/XML
>> serialization, and only use URIs in such serializations to
>> denote resources.
>> </soapbox>
>> 
>> This is one of the goals of my recently posted
>> alternative XML serialization for RDF.
>> 
> 
> Would we all agree on this?  - either we should get rid of qnames altogether
> (for RDF identifiers in xml serializations), or the rules should be adjusted
> to use real qnames instead of pseudo qnames.
> 
> If the latter isn't going to work, then no qnames and no regrets.  Stop
> pretending that regular xml can be treated as if it were rdf.  If you want
> to translate ordinary xml into rdf, do it separately.

This is my position. I don't think I'm alone in holding it.

> But what about embedding rdf into web pages so that it will not display?
> Don't we still want an attributes-only format for that?

Excellent point. Thanks Tom.

I've revised my proposed serialization so that string literals are encoded
as attributes on literal elements. This means that, with the exception
of XML literals, the serialization is completely an attributes-only
encoding, suitable for embedding anywhere with no worries about display.
There are no variant representations, so as long as there are no XML
literals, it is safely embeddable.

As for XML literals, having them display may be a very desirable
side effect, allowing one to e.g. define a RDDL like instance with
the RDFX serialization as the root encoding, and having comments
and the like expressed as XHTML encoded XML literals which then
display for human consumption, while allowing machines to digest
the RDF. 

The updated DTD and examples are attached, for those who care.

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 Thursday, 13 June 2002 05:32:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT