- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:01:50 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Brian McBride said: > At 11:04 24/05/2002 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: >> (XML) Namespaces are artifacts of the RDF/XML serialization and are >> not in the current model. > > From M&S: > > [[ > RDF also requires the XML namespace facility to precisely associate each > property with the schema that defines the property; ... > ]] > > [[ > Property names must be associated with a schema. This can be done by > qualifying the element names with a namespace prefix to unambiguously > connect the property definition with the corresponding RDF schema or by > declaring a default namespace as specified in [NAMESPACES]. > ]] > > [[ > In RDF, each predicate used in a statement must be identified with exactly > one namespace, or schema. > ]] And isn't it great how we threw most of that out of our current specs. Excellent. Relying on the (mostly missing, evolving) semantics of XML namespaces isn't going to work. The first quote I assume is about the syntax not the model. The property name <> schema association can be done using rdfs:isDefinedBy properties in the graph (though RDFS doesn't mention this). However since RDFS and such definitions are optional, this doesn't have to be present and the check in the last quote you give is therefore also not required. Dave
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 07:05:02 UTC