- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:43:58 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > [...] > > exchange arbitrary graphs. Do you think it is off charter to include a > > new attribute like "localID" in the RDF/XML syntax to make it as > > powerful as the underlying graph model? > > Yes, I'm afraid it is unreasonable to add such a syntax feature > and call it a clarification of RDF 1.0. Not if you call it a "bugfix" ;) > It's a great idea to go along with rdf:resourceQ or whatever, > i.e. an attribute just like rdf:resource and rdf:about except > that it uses QNames. So you think namespaces are part of the model? I've been trying to track any related postings, but haven't seen any debate on the list recently. Sergey
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 17:18:03 UTC