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

Le 30/06/2010 23:50, Peter Ansell a écrit :
> On 1 July 2010 07:25, Toby Inkster<>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
>> Jeremy Carroll<>  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 <> _:x . 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:




because it is malformed XML.


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