- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:42:18 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, xml-uri@w3.org
At 11:39 AM 5/23/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >What I would like to hear, here, is Simon's description of "what RDF is >trying to do" that we could then test for consensus. This piece appears to define behavior - both with regard to absolutization and schema retrieval - for namespace URIs. The 'no further requirements' section gives it a somewhat vague conclusion, but I think this expresses what RDF is 'trying to do' with regard to XML namespace URIs. From (apparently normative) Appendix C of the RDF Syntax REC: --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#usage C.2. Namespace URIs RDF uses the proposed XML namespace mechanism to implement globally unique identifiers for all properties. In addition, the namespace name serves as the identifier for the corresponding RDF schema. The namespace name is resolved to absolute form as specified by the algorithm in Section 5.2., Resolving Relative References to Absolute Form, in [URI]. An RDF processor can expect to use the schema URI to access the schema content. This specification places no further requirements on the content that might be supplied at that URI, nor how (if at all) the URI might be modified to obtain alternate forms or a fragment of the schema. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This bit might also be useful as a guide to how RDF understands resources, as resource description is the larger part of what 'RDF is trying to do': From (apparently normative) Appendix A of the RDF Syntax REC: -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#glossary Resource An abstract object that represents either a physical object such as a person or a book or a conceptual object such as a color or the class of things that have colors. Web pages are usually considered to be physical objects, but the distinction between physical and conceptual or abstract objects is not important to RDF. A resource can also be a component of a larger object; for example, a resource can represent a specific person's left hand or a specific paragraph out of a document. As used in this specification, the term resource refers to the whole of an object if the URI does not contain a fragment (anchor) id or to the specific subunit named by the fragment or anchor id. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the W3C Metadata Activity Statement provides a more general (and probably uncontroversial) statement of what RDF is up to: ------------------------------------------------------- http://www.w3.org/Metadata/Activity.html RDF is a declarative language and provides a standard way for using XML to represent metadata in the form of statements about properties and relationships of items on the Web. Such items, known as resources, can be almost anything, provided it has a Web address. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Of these, I find only the first one directly relevant to the current discussion, but while that practice (and the philosophy underlying it) seem fine within the context of RDF, expanding their scope to XML seems inappropriate. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 12:40:56 UTC