- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:24:39 -0800
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Tim Bray wrote: >... > > What else would you need? -Tim At first glance, I like your proposal. I think that there is a requirement for this sort of thing on one end of the explicit-and-inline/implicit-and-non-intrusive spectrum. At the other end, I think we also need some declarative way to say: "If you need to view this XML as RDF triples, here is how." This is necessary even if only as a transitional manner. But I would be happy to have that as a separate specification. Also, I think that the prefix-abbreviation idea of namespaces really does make sense for data also. Maybe we would just use QNames. After all that battle was probably lost years ago. XSLT, WSDL and XML Schema all use Qnames-as-data. But if I can't convince you, then there could be another short-form feature: <root xmlabbr:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/" xmlabbr:schemas="http://www.where.I.keep.my.schemas.com/" xmlabbr:iana= "http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/application/" xmlabbr:myns="http://my.namespace.com/"> ... <R r="${myns}#"> <PV p="${rddl}#purpose" v="${rddl}/purposes/#validation"/> <PV p="${rddl}#nature" v="${iana}/xml-dtd"/> ... </R> </root> I don't care about the syntax but I think that short-form is necessary. The propertyBase proposal is only helpful if most properties come from the same namespace but the more popular RDF gets, the more mixed the documents will get. Even your simple RDDL examples use a variety of different namespaces. And anyway, I think that a short-form proposal subsumes the features of your resourceBase, propertyBase and valueBase attributes. Maybe it is even a solution to the character entity short-name problem. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 18:25:20 UTC