- From: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:18:51 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Kurt and Thomas wrote: > No, use the full URI for the property. You can define > entities in a DTD > to get an abbreviation: > > rdf:ID='&dc;title' > > > <rdf:Property rdf:ID="dc:title"/> <--- Is > 'dc:title' OK to use > > this way???? Should I use an entity instead of the prefix???? > > Yes, use an entity as as above. No QNames in attribute > values, please. rdf:ID should be a NCName so this this still wrong. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#rdf-id And shouldn't we use rdf:about and not rdf:ID in property / class declarations? And is it necessary (or appropriate) to declare Dublin Core terms our own schemas? dc:title is a property with no declared domain or range so any class can have a dc:title by default. Perhaps <owl:imports rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" /> would suffice?
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2004 03:26:14 UTC