- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:23:17 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
>>>Brian McBride said: > o firstly of the various options of RDDL/RDF I've seen, the one suggested > by Paul in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0046.html > > looks pretty clean from an RDF perspective. Jonathan seemed to like it too. I think I got as far as the N3 and stopped reading ;) Seems OK to me. Verbose ,but nearly as minimal as you can get in RDF/XML for that form. > o its a really good idea not to rely the URI you used to fetch a document > to affect what it means. I've been burnt by taking copies of things on my > hard drive to work on them on a plane and finding when I should be > processing uri's like http://www.w3.org/.../schema#, I'm processing instead > file:c:\\temp\schema.rdf. Very embarrassing. In general use of xml:base helps this. I suspect Brian is focusing on the use of rdf:ID, which gives a relative URI-reference that then resolves relative to the document URI, if no other in-scope base URI is given. Either an xml:base somewhere or using rdf:about with an absolute URI-ref, would fix that. <snip/> Dave
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 05:27:21 UTC