RDF question

[John Cowan]

Dan Brickley wrote:

> This _is_ pretty confusing syntax; mostly because it makes extensive use
> of the abbreviated version of the RDF-in-XML serialisation syntax, but
> also because Netscape haven't use XML namespaces or documented their
> vocabulary within anything except C source code... This makes it hard to
> tell which property types are 'core' RDF facilities, and which belong to
> the Netscape sitemap vocabulary. As far as I can see though it is correct,
> in that it can be mapped into nodes'n'arcs following the rules in the
> Model and Syntax paper.

What *is* broken, though, is that there are two ID attributes with
the same value.  That makes XLinks to them impossible.

IMHO it would have been better if the attributes "id" and "ID"
had been reserved in XML to always be of type ID, even for non-validating
parsers.  I know that was considered at one time.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan at ccil.org
	You tollerday donsk?  N.  You tolkatiff scowegian?  Nn.
	You spigotty anglease?  Nnn.  You phonio saxo?  Nnnn.
		Clear all so!  'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)