- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:51:34 -0400
- To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler >... > In RDF/XML, qnames are not *real* qnames. They are just URIs > pretending to be or masquerading as qnames. > > <soapbox> > We will never be able to fully reconcile qnames and URIs, nor > should we even bother to try. All we need to do is respect the > full structure and semantics of qnames in our RDF/XML > serialization, and only use URIs in such serializations to > denote resources. > </soapbox> > > This is one of the goals of my recently posted > alternative XML serialization for RDF. > Would we all agree on this? - either we should get rid of qnames altogether (for RDF identifiers in xml serializations), or the rules should be adjusted to use real qnames instead of pseudo qnames. If the latter isn't going to work, then no qnames and no regrets. Stop pretending that regular xml can be treated as if it were rdf. If you want to translate ordinary xml into rdf, do it separately. But what about embedding rdf into web pages so that it will not display? Don't we still want an attributes-only format for that? Cheers, Tom P
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 08:50:28 UTC