On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:10 -0500, Elliotte Harold wrote: [...] > I can think of a lot of fun and useful things to do with the text and > markup of actual RDDL documents, but URIs for nature properties just > don't enter into that. OK, I think Norm clarified that while he was noodling with rddl:nature as an RDF property, that's not really how RDDL is used in practice; the syntax that's used in practice is xlink:role (if I recall correctly). The result of the discussion that Norm is to collect details of actual RDDL practice: "ACTION: Norm to provide a set of test cases of whays in which RDDL is actually used" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/13-morning-minutes#item02 which see Bring out your namespace documents http://norman.walsh.name/2006/12/18/rddl And as to what 'drens' stands for... it's document root element namespace. "ACTION: DanC to start an ontology including docns/documentElementNamespace" > I am assuming here there's a distinction between the URI for RDDL's > nature property and the URIs of particular RDDL natures. Did I read you > right about that? I'm equally concerned about all URIs that get used; I gather that URIs of particlar RDDL natures are more concretely used than a rddl:nature URI, yes. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29EReceived on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 15:25:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:04 GMT