- From: Jan Wielemaker <wielemak@science.uva.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:38:59 +0200
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus@few.vu.nl>
Mark, On Wednesday 19 April 2006 13:50, Mark van Assem wrote: > I'm not sure what you think the motivation was... Actually thinking back > I think the motivation was twofold I guessed (2) > 1) esthetics > 2) easy way to define URIs that refer to larger chunks, e.g. > http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/wordsense/bank could refer to all > the wordsenses containing 'bank'. I moved this idea to the 'Issues' > section of [1]. > > > problem must be solved otherwise. Of course, unless you propose to revise > > XML/RDF and preferably also XML namespace handling :-) > > I think especially that only allowing QNames for attributes in RDF/XML > is pretty strange. You can't even replace <rdf:type ...> for its > expanded URI. Probably other notations do not have this quirk? You seem to forget the purpose of SGML/XML was designed for: define the structure for a text document. Elements and attributes typically have names like 'author', 'h1', 'name', etc. You `invent' these names while defining the meta-structure of documents (DTD). They are identifiers, just like function and variable names in programming languages. Just to avoid complex quoting rules and unreadable identifiers they are limited to -simplified- alphanumerical characters and a few things one can use as word-breaks (-_.). The '/' already plays a role in XML syntax, so you don't want that to be in identifiers. The RDF/XML serialization tries to represent an instance of a class in a natural way as <Class name=value><name2>value2</name2></Class>. This implies `Class' and `name' must represent URIs, but XML poses some limits on this. Alternatively one could have choosen for something like this: <rdf:triple subject="..." predicate="...">object</rdf:triple> There is something to be said for both approaches. Overall, I'm not unhappy with the current XML/RDF standard. Just give all students an excercise to write a parser for it :-) Cheers --- Jan
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 12:40:16 UTC