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

Re: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:58:16 +0100 (BST)
To: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
cc: RDFCore <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0109031556480.10866-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, dehora wrote:

> then the seemingly compelling reasons are:
> 1: now that we have good feedback now on how people are using xml-rdf we
> should recognise that it is being used as an extensibility mechanism and
> take the high ground on the matter.
> 2: in using prefixes to disambiguate, everyone can play nice over
> statement value interpretations. I think DAML and Tim Berners-Lee have
> been smart here.
> 3: with a mandated prefix the RDF recommendations can make their games
> foremost and provide a sane minimal base of interpretations.
> 4: prefixes give futureproofing. For example with an 'rdf:' prefix,
> infoset would have been a snap to add this time around
> (parseType="rdf:Infoset"). It makes architectural sense to allow a way
> for future wgs to feed back known useful value interpretations into the
> standard.

Since namespaces don't leak into rdf:parseType attributes, do you want
to be the same as "rdf:Literal" if "foo" is declared as "the same"
namespace as "rdf"?

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Bolstered by my success with vi, I proceeded to learn C with 'learn c'.
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 11:00:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC