- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:23:04 +0000
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 5 Mar 2008, at 13:53, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > > Dear all, > > I just had a quick look at the OWL XML description and have some > comments on it. > > 1) What is the rationale behind using owl11xml:URI instead of > xml:id attributes on XML elements? I would think that xml:id is inappropriate for several reasons: 1) we aren't trying to identify elements; these are application level not XML level identifiers; 2) the value of an xml:id is an NCName http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id/#processing thus can't capture all URIs 3) the ultimate type is "id" which may have some consequences for the PSVI. 4) the uniqueness constraint is irrelevant so confusing > It seems natural to adopt the standard way of identifying XML > elements. [snip] Well, my guess on what an XML weenie might say is that since we *aren't* identifying XML elements (but OWL classes, properties, etc.) that rather than being natural, it would be A Wrongness. Your inner XML weeniemeter might read differently :) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 18:21:19 UTC