Re: Update to XLink -> RDF mapping

Ron Daniel wrote:
> Apologies for the delay in informing people...
> A couple of weeks ago the XML Linking WG discussed
> the issue of what to do about the XLink->RDF mapping
> NOTE. The decision was to finish it off and publish
> it as a NOTE, investing the minimum amount of additional
> work needed for that task. Beyond that, the WG does
> not intend to work on the document.
> So, I am going to make another pass over the document
> and then call it done. People who want to get any
> changes into the document need to make requests
> to me (cc'ing the rdf-interest and xml-linking-interest
> lists) by the end of next week (Sept. 1).

I found it very interesting, and I think it is a shame that so few people manifested interest about it - especially when so many people are concerned about RDF syntax and RDF-enabling any XML document...

A few comments :

- introduction of section 3.3 reads
"Then we describe the rules for the extended link as a whole."
but there is no such rules (as I understand it, they have been removed from older versions)

- about expanding QNames by concatenation :
as I already mentionned it in the rdf-interest list, I quite don't like the idea of concatenating a namespace with a tagname. Although I admit this can be reasonable with an RDF-dedicated namespace, this seems much more hazardous in any XML document.
The note suggests that when no xlink:arcrole is given, the element QName be so expanded and  used as the RDF predicate. I would rather propose two appoaches when no xlink:arcrole is given :
 * no triple is generated - the xlink:arcrole MUST be present to generate a triple
 * an implicit arcrole is assumed, e.g. 

- about RDF predicates xlink:title, xlink:label :
how are they supposed to be expanded ? and
(which strictly follows the concatenation rule but is obviously wrong ;-)
or and
which sounds sane...
This should be clearly stated in the note.

  Pierre-Antoine Champin

--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.

Received on Monday, 28 August 2000 04:32:54 UTC