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

On 1 July 2010 09:07, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote:
> 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.

I think you picked a bad example as it is possible to make that URI
work as a predicate, but any predicate URI that can't be split into
local and foreign names wouldn't work.

<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="x">
     <com xmlns="mailto:az@ex.">
          <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="x">
          </rdf:Description>
    </com>
</rdf:Description>

Thanks,

Peter

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 23:20:08 UTC