Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

Patrick Stickler wrote:

> If the qname used in the RDF/XML
> serialization always resulted in the correct URI in the RDF graph,
> in a context where the qname is not being interpreted by an XML
> Schema application, would that be OK?

If that means either creating a new URI which starts with _for any purpose_ including as a namespace
name, and not documenting this in XML Schema, or binding the prefix "xsd" to
other than , then no.

Again, would you object if I were to redefine the usage of rdf:about etc.
("rdf" bound to the RDF namespace) and widely distribute software, with a
small disclaimer at the bottom "this close to RDF"? Perhaps acceptable to
the RDFIG in a strawman situation, but don't unleash this upon masses of
unsuspecting web developers who will simply get confused.

> Note that, because of the nature of the RDF/XML content model
> (or lack thereof ;-) you cannot validate an RDF instance according
> to a DTD or XML Schema very easily, and I don't believe it was
> ever expected that RDF instances would be tested for anything other
> than well-formedness except by an RDF specific parser.

Actually a RELAXNG grammer can.

> ... it seems that we
> actually can find a reasonable way to use both RDF and XML Schema
> datatypes, and it would be great to do so, while we work on fixing
> all that other stuff.
> It's kind of a crawl, walk, run progression...

When you issue a W3C recommendation, it becomes hardwired as a compatibility
issue for as long at the web as we know it exists. Do it correctly. Make it
something you will be proud to have your name on.


Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 10:44:03 UTC