- From: Manuel Vázquez Acosta <manu@chasqui.cu>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:34:21 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi all: I'm wondering why just rdf:parseType values are not require to be a resource identified by its URI. I think it'd be better to have something like: <ex:Stuff rdf:parseType="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag"> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.example.com/items#1"/> <rdf:li rdf:resource=" http://www.example.com/items#2"/> </ex:Stuff> Then DAML+OIL "daml:collection" parseType (written as %daml;collection) would be fully qualified in the DAML+OIL namespace instead. As it is now, is just a 'reserved' string for the parses to take account of it. Moreover, DAML+OIL parses must recognize this string to have a special meaning, and I think the whole point of RDF is NOT to give any special meaning but to resource (I know rdf:parseType is just a RDF/XML shortcut, and therefore not part of the RDF semantics). But I still think constraining rdf:parseType to be resources would lead to a more extendable language; not to mention that other RDF-flavored languages could be created to describe such a new parseType. Regards, Manuel. Lic. Manuel Vázquez Acosta. Grupo Chasqui® UCLV.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 15:00:45 UTC