W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2002


From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:48:43 -0500
Message-Id: <200210311748.g9VHmhu16102@wadimousa.hawke.org>
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
cc: www-archive@w3.org

You said last night [1]:

  Basically, we need an RDF equivalent of XInclude (but cannot use
  XInclude since it creates illegal RDF) i.e. a document with an
  <rdf:RDF> cannot include another document with an <rdf:RDF> and
  still be a legal RDF/XML document

Have you raised this to www-rdf-comments?  Allowing nested rdf:RDF
seems like a trivial extension to the grammar with no change to the
semantics.  Knowing nothing as I do, I'd think the Core WG would be
likely to provide this if you asked for it.   I bet a lot of people
would like it.

On the other hand, maybe this isn't the right way to do imports at
all, and it should be done at the semantic level....  (Tim [et al
including me] are arguing that saying animals:Cat by its nature
imports animals; trying to separate animals:Cat from animals:Dog is
unlikely to succeed -- they each kind of define each other.)

    -- sandro

[1] http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2002-10-31#T02-00-49
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 12:50:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:31:54 UTC