RE: working around the identity crisis

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of ext 
> Benjamin Nowack
> Sent: 16 November, 2004 20:19
> To: Miles, AJ (Alistair)
> Cc:;
> Subject: RE: working around the identity crisis
> >Not that I'm expressing any sort of opinion on whether hash 
> or slash is best
> >;)
> Me neither ;)
> I actually like  #-vocabs very much as they are usually using the
> rdf:ID construct which makes them easier to read (and yes, 
> "view-source"-
> friendliness *can* help the SemWeb grow ;). but I see the 
> problems that
> arise when someone tries to create #-URIs for individuals. 
> using slash,
> but auto-adding fragIDs, could be a nice solution both camps could be
> happy with, though. (provided that tools supported such a 
> feature. I'll
> have a thought or two on that..)

A widely used practice, and one which I hope is on the
radar of the SWBP WG, is the use of XML entities so that
one can have a form of qname in rdf:about attribute values
which is far more readable.

E.g. consider examples such as

   <rdfs:Datatype rdf:about="&xsd;#nonNegativeInteger">
   <rdf:Property rdf:about="&mars;/title">

etc. in

Also, note that just because rdf:ID may be used in some schema,
that does not mean that (a) there may not be official, authoritative
statements about that resource in some other schema, or (b) there
may not be any statements about that resource in the same schema
using rdf:about.

RDF/XML is simply a serialization of an RDF graph.

It is the graph, and the URIs that all those syntactic variants
map to, that really matter. And I'd prefer to see our best
practices, common methodologies, and solutions based on the graph,
not on particulars of the RDF/XML serialization (and I expect that
I am not at all alone in that sentiment).



Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 12:15:19 UTC