CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 04:45:25 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:27:14 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 05:17:17 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98c3a6889dba96ba
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: HIT
set-cookie: __cf_bm=90vd8DpgYYj24N673XKOYXixEOkkfdDHbV6sgIEaxNg-1760157925-1.0.1.1-KEtr3ZtHc7CaBnPZw5CpCwXoZulgkbbpw96gBTkBdcOkYkQ80Y3an.ideq82IuUulMrsBEog2oTTBc2Cp2mbuKQ88zQ9AxnikqCui6bGQTQ; path=/; expires=Sat, 11-Oct-25 05:15:25 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98cbb537de93741b-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
RE: Linking RDF from Lee Jonas on 2001-04-23 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from April 2001)
RE: Linking RDF
- From: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:04:13 +0100
- To: "'Brian McBride'" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <51ED29F31E20D411AAFD00105A4CD7A77102@zingiber.cakehouse.co.uk>
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: > > https://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] https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names#ns-expnames [2] https://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