W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Issue rdfms-abouteach

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:02:32 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C0A8@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

> For writing by hand, there are, ahem, non-XML syntaxes that 
> are better.

I'm not saying there aren't. But the spec defines an
XML serialization and that is what the masses will use.

IMO, anyone who things that the web community at large will
adopt a non-XML notation for the interchange of RDF encoded
knowledge is mistaken.

The presumption that problems relating to the XML serialization
need not be of concern because there are other "better" notations
out there really troubles me, particularly if held by WG members.

RDF defines (a) a conceptual model, (b) specific ontologies,
and (c) an XML serialization.

So, please don't tell me (or some other user) that the
answer to their problems is to use some other notation than

If and when N3 is an *official* serialization for RDF and
*all* RDF parsers are required to support it in order to
claim conformance, then I'll accept that as an acceptable

Until then, it is just avoiding the issue.
> Can now be written as
>  <rdf:Bag rdf:ID="guys">
>     <rdf:li rdf:type="http://example.org/property/Male" 
> rdf:resource="#Bob"/>
>  ...

You are apparently missing the entire point of a
syntactic *convenience*.

> > This is also very useful for asserting "local"
> > classifications of resources for third-party
> > knowledge where you cannot touch the original
> > schemas.
> It is a syntax-in-this-document thing; aboutEach over concepts in
> other documents is I think, not allowed, since we decided in June
> that the aboutEach distributed over top level nodes in the same
> RDF/XML document.

It is if you use standard XML mechanisms for inclusion.

Or rather, one can create a syndicated XML instance from
individual instances for interpretation by an RDF parser
in terms of syntactic constructs.

Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 07:02:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC