W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001

RE: Datatypes in RDF (was: RDFCore Update)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:13:16 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B788773211440431621621@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: vdv@dyomedea.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> >       <rdf:type rdf:resource="x:dataType"/>

> <rant>
> Although many vocabularies are doing so I am usually very 
> reluctant to 
> use qualified names in attributes or element values.

The use of qnames as attribute values or in content data aside,
the above resource is a URV namespace, hence a URI. Yes, I 
know it looks like a qname. Perhaps it should have been written
as "x:dataType:". If you haven't already, please read my X-Values
proposal (I don't want to repeat it here). 


This brings up the question, which I asked in another thread
yesterday, about whether one can treat a URI scheme prefix
or URN/URV namespace prefix as a URI.

E.g. are "http:" or "urn:issn:" URI's? Can I use them to 
make statements about those schemes? If not, why not?
(all RDF parsers I've used seem quite happy to treat them as URIs)

And personally, I think the ability to use qnames in attributes
is highly desireable and will have a great impact on future user
acceptance of RDF XML serializations (which are *very* cumbersome
to write manually -- or require the use of ENTITY tricks to achieve
the same level of compression and convenience as qnames but 
introduce yet another representation for a URI). XML Schema got it
right IMO by allowing qnames as values of URI typed attributes.



Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 02:14:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC