W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2004

Re: intra-document rdf:resource references?

From: Damian Steer <damian.steer@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:04:16 +0100
Message-Id: <46EC8C61-1C92-11D9-B3E5-000D932B9016@hp.com>
Cc: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>

Hash: SHA1

On 12 Oct 2004, at 20:33, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:

> I was frustrated by the choice between making a dc:description element 
> either flat text with no inline elements, to maintain proper 
> striping, or else pointer to an external file using rdf:resource, and 
> then I realized that rdf:resource doesn't have to point outside the 
> document. When I point it at an element that's outside of the rdf:RDF 
> element but inside the same document as demonstrated below, arp2 
> doesn't have any problem with it. Is there any particular reason it 
> might not be considered good practice?
> thanks,
> Bob DuCharme

Hmm. I guess you want the equivalent of:

<description parsetype="xml">
	<div id="i2">
		<p>Kendall Clark described some of the issues around binary XML in
an <a href='http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/13/deviant.html'>XML.com 

Well, it's not equivalent, and an rdf api won't tell you the 
description is <that xml chunk>. The difference is your version has a 
reference to a literal, and mine has a literal. But if you resolve it 
you ought to get that chunk (pace alternative representations of the 

I suspect my main worry is: when should an application resolve? This 
case is pleasingly innocuous, but suppose the description were a 
multi-megabyte video. I guess being in the same document is a useful 
heuristic, although we RDFers have sworn a solemn vow never to peek in 
URIs ;-) You could also type the reference to indicate that you app 
might want to resolve.

Hmm - you could even type it as rdfs:Literal since they're not disjoint 
from resources. (That will get me in trouble ;-)

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 21:05:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:53 UTC