- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:32:28 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 07:55 AM 1/29/01 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >so clearly the 'concept' or term 'unsignedInt' has a URI assigned by the XML >Schema spec of: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt. > >IMHO, it is not reasonable to have RDF and (e.g.) XML Schema assign a >different URI to the same thing. I agree it's not reasonable, but I don't think it's invalid. I think there are three difficult areas: (1) RDF-syntax is not internally consistent with these things: in some cases ID values are simply concatenated with some URI; in other cases they are treated as fragment identifiers attached to a URI. (2) As you note, RDF-syntax practice doesn't sit comfortably with related XML practices. (3) As noted elsewhere, recently, RDF treatment of resources differs from Web treatment of resources -- an RDF resource is not necessarily a web resource. Like Dave, I happen to think it's the model that really matters, but having these syntactic oddities sometimes makes it more difficult to discuss the model clearly. (And I think point (3) is a model-related problem.) #g
Received on Monday, 29 January 2001 13:52:40 UTC