- 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