- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:14:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: wkearney99@hotmail.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: strange treatment of namespaces in RDF/XML
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:49:09 -0400
[...]
> > The example should be
> >
> > So
> > ... xmlns:xm = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namesp"
> > .. <xm:acehi ... /> ...
> > is legal, as is
> > ... xmlns:xmx = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
> > .. <xmx:hi ... /> ...
> > but
> > ... xmlns:xmxx = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespaceh"
> > .. <xmxx:i ... /> ...
> > is not.
>
> I'm still not clear on what you're on about.
>
> While they might be legal, they're not equivalent. Are you saying the first two
> examples are expected to be equivalent somehow? As in, the <hi> element from
> the "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" namespace? Your two examples aren't
> equivalent. The first one is the <acehi> element from the
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namesp namespace. The second one is the <hi> element
> from the http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace namespace. The third one is the
> <i> element from the http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespaceh namespace. Near as I
> can tell, they're all /legal/, at least in the RDF serialized in XML sense, but
> they're not equivalent.
Well, as far as RDF goes, they would, if legal, all be equivalent. To be
precise the following documents,
1/
<rdf:RDF xmlns:xm = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namesp"
xmlns:ex = "http://foo.ex#">
<xm:acehi>
<ex:prop rdf:resource="http://foo.ex#object" />
</xm:acehi>
</rdf:RDF>
2/
<rdf:RDF xmlns:xmx = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"
xmlns:ex = "http://foo.ex#">
<xmx:hi>
<ex:prop rdf:resource="http://foo.ex#object" />
</xmx:hi>
</rdf:RDF>
3/
<rdf:RDF xmlns:xmxx = "http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespaceh"
xmlns:ex = "http://foo.ex#">
<xmxx:i>
<ex:prop rdf:resource="http://foo.ex#object" />
</xmxx:i>
</rdf:RDF>
if treated as legal RDF/XML documents all produce equivalent RDF graphs
that can be written in RDF triples as
_:a <http://foo.ex#prop> <http://foo.ex#object> .
_:a <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespacehi> .
> As for the original examples, using rdf:about="#sometext" presumes, in RDF/XML,
> that you're linking to another element elsewhere in the same document marked up
> with rdf:ID="sometext".
Not really. There is no need to have an rdf:ID="sometext" to have an
rdf:about="#sometext", even leaving aside issues having to do with xml:base.
> But I get the feeling you already know this so I'm confused as to the point
> being made.
This is a different issue. I do admit that I also feel rather confused
when I try to sort all these issues out.
> -Bill Kearney
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 23:14:19 UTC