- 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