W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Guide: review - boring (this review not the guide)

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 08:14:59 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221410D446D8@USPLM207>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Thanks, Jeremy.

This current RDF status is something I hope OWL can avoid.  For instance,
this is the first time I have even heard of the document Jeremy references, 

 Resource Description Framework (RDF):
 Concepts and Abstract Data Model

and I am still unclear as to what its weight will be vis-a-vis RDF syntax
and semantics even when it becomes a recommendation.  

The good news from Jeremy's note is that RDF has already charted most of the
murky, low level XML/XML Base/XML Namespace/URL waters for us.

Having an operational definition in the form of a validator is great, but it
is not a big help if it embodies syntax and semantics that are not recorded
in the standard.  

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 6:41 AM
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: FW: Guide: review - boring (this review not the guide)

>  rdf:ID="VIN:FOO"     (IDsymbol is an XML Name.)
> Where is this ruled out?  Or is it permitted and if so what does it
> mean?

This one is probably not yet in any published doc really. M&S is at best
ambiguous, it really ought to refer to XML Namespaces NC Colon but doesn't.



(this is not yet approved).

>  rdf:about="FOO"      (rel_path)
>  rdf:about="FOO#BOO"  (rel_path + fragment)
>  rdf:about="VIN:FOO"  (absolute URI with opaque part)

The newer specs are clear that:

1) The RDF graph requires absolute URIs
2) That relative URIs in RDF/XML are converted to absolute URIs using
RFC2396, and xml:base, if any.
3) That rdf:about takes a URI not a qname.
Thus all three examples are legal, but VIN:FOO is a distinct uri from an
unregistered scheme VIN, rather than the uri which is formed from the qname

Dan is right to point out that the RDF validator does encapsulate most of my
knowledge. Things missing at the moment are:
 - the illegality of " 1 " when an integer is required (depends on RDF
datatyping that is not finished)
 - rdf:parseType="Collection" support (present in the Jena CVS but not in
any released version - next release this week or next, probably a little
time before it gets into the validator).

But it does report an error on the obscure namespace erratum!

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 09:17:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:48 UTC