- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:07:55 +0100
- 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"/>
or
<rdf:Description>
<myPredicate>blabla</myPredicate>
</rdf:Description>
but you cannot write:
<rdf:Description mailto:az@ex.com="blabla"/>
nor
<rdf:Description>
<mailto:az@ex.com>blabla</mailto:az@ex.com>
</rdf:Description>
because it is malformed XML.
AZ
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 23:08:31 UTC