Re: a remark on the webid spec

On 12.12.2011 19:09, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 12 Dec 2011, at 18:32, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/2011 05:45 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12 Dec 2011, at 15:24, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> having a look at the WebID spec, I spotted a few mistakes in the RDF/XML
>>>> example:
>>>>
>>>> * the rdfs namespace is not declared
>>>> * the closing tag for rdfs:label misses the leading '/'
>>>> * the datatypes xsd:hexBinary and xsd:integer should be expanded URIs,
>>>> not CURIEs
>>>
>>> very well spotted, Pierre. Thanks a lot. We have updated the spec here
>>>
>>>   https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/WebID/rev/add4f836470d
>>>
>>> WE fixed this in today's meeting
>>>
>>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/12/12-webid-minutes.html
>>>
>>> and we should have a new spec with all the latest changes out today.
>>>
>>> Does one really have to use full URLs for datatypes? That's really a bit lame...
>>
>> well, unless I missed something the RDF/XML recommendation, I'm pretty
>> sure you have to...
>>
>> And I agree, it is a bit lame...
>
> That would be one point in favour of using Turtle as the other MUST format, (and drop rdf/xml)
> Though we would need quite a few other serious reasons to do something like that.

Another reason is that RDF/XML can't encode all posiible RDF graphs (it 
is related with XML namespaces restrictions). Jeremy J. Carroll in [1] 
write that there are other unresolved syntactic issues, collections, 
literals as subjects, blank nodes as predicates, reification and quoting.

[1] https://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2003/HPL-2003-268.pdf

Best regards,
Dominik 'domel' Tomaszuk

Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 22:12:19 UTC