Linking RDF from Lee Jonas on 2001-04-23 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from April 2001) (original) (raw)
Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] wrote:
Hi Lee,
Hi Brian!
Discussions on these issues seem to have died down, yet the issues have not been resolved and the new RDFCore working group are not even going to address them.
There is an issue on the RDF Issues list:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qname-uri-mapping
Does this, together with the link to Perry's message cover the issues you'd like to see resolved, or are there other aspects you'd like to draw the WG's attention to?
Brian
The link to Perry's message covers one aspect, "weird, unwieldy namespaces with different semantics to other XML namespaces" - i.e. the deviation of namespace treatment in RDF from its use in other XML technologies and the implied intent of the XML Namespace spec (as stated in one of the appendices [1], IOW it was made clearer and normative).
The two other issues were:
"open grammar, which is harder to validate simply (and nigh on impossible to do properly with DTDs)" - Syntax validation within the context of RDF embedded in other XML grammars would be easier if the RDF syntax were only of the 'Fixed-Schema' variety, see [2]. Currently, the propertyElt construct, and abbreviated forms of RDF are of the 'Schema-follows-data' variety.
"resolution of RDF schemas clashes with resolution of XML schemas" - both XML Schema and RDF Schema utilise namespace URIs to locate markup that describes XML syntax rules and RDF model rules, respectively. I am now thinking this is not so much of an issue, as you could always use content-negotiation to retrieve the type of schema you are looking for, and there is another mechanism within RDF to state where to find a schema description for a given resource (i.e. rdfs:isDefinedBy).
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names#ns-expnames [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Apr/0346.html
regards Lee
PS, I for one find it very reassuring that the issues list is now being actively maintained, keep up the good work!
Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 08:04:44 UTC