- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:21:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, McBride, Brian wrote: > Appendix A of the schema spec gives an RDF serialization of schema which > begins: > > <rdf:RDF > xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"> > > <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Resource"> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Resource</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">Ressource</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment>The most general class</rdfs:comment> > </rdfs:Class> > > Should the 4th line read: > > <rdfs:Class rdf:about="rdfs:Resource"> I think this is really an RDF syntax question. RDF syntax doesn't currently allow xml-namespace qualified names inside attributes. At the time, there was a widespread desire to do so but an awareness that such abbreviations would be invisible to other namespace aware processors, which might set about re-writing namespace prefixes on element and attribute names, breaking the linkage between 'rdfs:' and the full URI if we used qualified names in attribute content. Now we (nearly) have XML Schema, it could be easier to express such usage in a fashion that machines can be made aware of. The intention is that the construct we use represents an RDF model equivalent to that which parsers would produce if encountering: <rdfs:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"> if the context was that the 'base URI' for the syntax parsing was http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# Ralph Swick has just posted some very detailed comments on this in reply to a submission to the rdf-comments list; it might be good to move discussion of that to the RDF IG forum: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2000AprJun/0014.html Dan
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 12:21:28 UTC