W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:07:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4C2BCE4B.20107@deri.org>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Le 30/06/2010 23:50, Peter Ansell a écrit :
> On 1 July 2010 07:25, Toby Inkster<tai@g5n.co.uk>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
>> Jeremy Carroll<jeremy@topquadrant.com>  wrote:
>>> Here are the reasons I voted this way:
>>> - it will mess up RDF/XML
>> No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
>> representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
>> the case.
> Could you point me to an example of a valid RDF graph that RDF/XML
> cannot represent? I have heard people say this before but I don't
> remember ever seeing an example.

Take this example:

_:x <mailto:az@ex.com> _:x .

mailto:az@ex.com is a valid URI but it cannot be used as an XML element 
or attribute. In RDF/XML, predicates of triples appear either as XML 
elements or as attributes, like this:

<rdf:Description myPredicate="blabla"/>



but you cannot write:

<rdf:Description mailto:az@ex.com="blabla"/>



because it is malformed XML.

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 23:08:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:18 UTC