- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:56:43 +0100
- To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Murray Altheim <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com> wrote:-
> We still need to provide the application with the notation
> processor, which doesn't happen via this mechanism.
Ah, I see. I guess that FPIs are just a fallback from the old
cataloguing days... which I guess can be modelled in RDF (in fact,
using Notation3):-
<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3> a :SGMLNotation;
:hasFPI "-//W3C//NOTATION Notation3//EN" .
:hasFPI a daml:unambiguousProperty; rdfs:range :FPI .
:SGMLNotation :monikerFor :Datatype .
> This makes the application designer's task merely of assigning
> processors to well known notations, watching across the API
> for nodes or entities having those notations, and then sending
> the content on to the notation/datatype processor.
Hmm... I'm still a little uncomfortable with getting parsers to vance
upon the DTD just to gain a notation. I'd be a bit more comfortable if
one declared it in the head of the doucment like so:-
<!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "xhtml11.dtd" [
<!NOTATION n3 SYSTEM "http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3">
<!ENTITY % Metadata.ext "| n3" >
]>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xml:lang="en" >
[...]
But then it'd still require vancing upon the DTD to gain information
about the %Metadata.ext entity.
Is it possible to declare that a certain attribute's content acts as
an SGML notation system identifier? Still, without some kind of
DTD/schema, you wouldn't even be able to know that the content of
"notation" is meant to refer to a notation/datatype, so there'd be no
point really. Grr... all data is proprietary in a sense; it's
difficult achieving the correct balance.
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 09:57:27 UTC