- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:32:14 +0100
- To: Roland Schwaenzl <roland@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 13:01 02/04/2003 +0200, Roland Schwaenzl wrote: >Dear wg, > >maybe i'm missing something: Is there mentioning rdf:nodeID is not >supposed to survive parsing at another place than in the syntax and model >document? Roland, Are you referring to the model and syntax document http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/ rdf:nodeID is a new feature introduced by the RDFCore WG that is not described in this document. It is described in the new RDF working drafts such as: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/ http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/ > > >Isn't it rdf:nodeID's provide a simple hack, which allows to (re)-serialize >RDF graphs as rather flat verbose XML (with literal parsetype as exception)? Whether the feature is simple, a hack and produces flat or verbose XML are value judgements about which the WG has expressed no opinion. rdf:nodeID is designed to enable the serialization of graphs such as: _:a rdf:value _:a . in RDF/XML, which was not possible before. >I would like to see cases -if there are- described in the primer, which >require (!) the use of rdf:ID, rdf:resource and other syntax constructs - The WG's last call comment period has been closed for some time. Whilst we try to be responsive to comments we receive, there has to come a time when we stop trying to improve the documents and start trying to lock them down. For us, that time has arrived. I intend to propose to the WG that we don't accept this as a last call comment on the grounds it does not identify a major technical problem with the specs and that is has arrived too late for us to consider. Is that acceptable to you? Brian
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 12:31:29 UTC