- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:20:43 -0400
- To: "Ron Daniel" <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > FWIW, I think xml:base helps RDF out in what is otherwise a problem area. ... > > Not every RDF statement is necessarily contained in a Web resource; i.e. > may be not contained in a URI-addressable document. Specifically, RDF > statements may be contained in a transient protocol element. (Similar > considerations may apply if RDF is read from a pipe or TCP connection.) > > Under these circumstances, there is some confusion about the meaning and > usability of rdf:ID= to identify an RDF resource. I think the confusion > can be resolved if an xml:base attribute is used to create a base URI for > such cases. It may be necessary to check the definition of rdf:ID to be > sure that xml:base applies. > This is an outstanding point, and as a result "xml:base" support should be -required-. -Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 12:37:23 UTC