W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Another RDDL/RDF proposal

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:23:17 +0000
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6153.1037182997@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Brian McBride said:
> o firstly of the various options of RDDL/RDF I've seen, the one suggested 
> by Paul in
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0046.html
> 
> looks pretty clean from an RDF perspective.  Jonathan seemed to like it too.

I think I got as far as the N3 and stopped reading ;)

Seems OK to me.  Verbose ,but nearly as minimal as you can get in
RDF/XML for that form.

> o its a really good idea not to rely the URI you used to fetch a document 
> to affect what it means.  I've been burnt by taking copies of things on my 
> hard drive to work on them on a plane and finding when I should be 
> processing uri's like http://www.w3.org/.../schema#, I'm processing instead 
> file:c:\\temp\schema.rdf.  Very embarrassing.

In general use of xml:base helps this.  I suspect Brian is focusing
on the use of rdf:ID, which gives a relative URI-reference that then
resolves relative to the document URI, if no other in-scope base URI
is given.  Either an xml:base somewhere or using rdf:about with an
absolute URI-ref, would fix that.

<snip/>

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 05:27:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT