- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 20:03:42 +0100
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Art Barstow" <barstow@w3.org>
> The correct way to do this is:
>
> <x:foo>
> <rdf:Description>
> <rdf:value rdf:resource="urn:abc:xyz"/>
> <x:bar>jkl</x:bar>
> </rdf:Description>
> </x:foo>
Actually, I think that Patrick was asking how the following is represented
in XML RDF:-
[ rdf:resource <urn:abc:xyz>; x:bar "jkl" ] .
According to the RDF BNF production [1], propName is just a QName: it does
not exclude any of the syntactic elements of RDF, and therefore the
following *is* legal RDF, and if the RDF validator produces an error, then
it is incorrect:-
<rdf:Description>
<rdf:resource rdf:resource="urn:abc:xyz"/>
<x:bar>jkl</x:bar>
</rdf:Description>
However, I'm not sure why anyone would want to refer to the URI reference:-
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#resource
in the RDF model anyway, because it is a part of the syntax and not the
model. Patrick being the king of QName doom is probably pointing out that
RDF confuses syntactic and semantic QNames by kludging them into one
namespace, and indeed people (DanC?) have expressed that the two should be
separated.
Cheers,
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#basic
- "2.2.1. Basic Serialization Syntax", RDF M&S Recommendation
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2001 15:05:03 UTC