- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:47:48 +1000
- To: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com> > I don't think RDF/XML 1.0 isn't really a markup language, since > it really just excanges triples and doesn't mark up anything. Yes. Acually, I wonder whether there might be someway of having our current cake and eating it too. Perhaps if, rather than banning unqualified names in RDF, the refactoring WG instead made the rule that "Unqualified information items in an RDF document do not form part of the RDF information in a document. They can be used as part of the XML information set of a document, but they may not survive round-tripping through an RDF system which imports the document. RDF systems can be assumed to strip information items with unqualified names. Any rdf-namespace information items contained at any level by an unqualifed element are not significant as part of the RDF information of the encompassing document or branch." I think this allows RDF to be a "good citizen" in the XML world: if people have unqualified names, for whatever reason, it won't break RDF extraction, and the reach of RDF into the XML information set is clear. Can I suggest that the refactoring group reconsider their namespace decision? It is fair enough that RDF requires namespaces, but it goes too far to require that an XML document can contain only RDF information. We need to be able to add annotations anywhere, and not just RDF annotations. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 05:42:48 UTC