Hi All,
I brought up the issue of using the xsi: attributes in RDF/XML a while ago.
See the discussion thread starting at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0165.html
The resolution was that it didn't make sense to allow them; although, I must
say that I am still not convinced. I still think that even if XML Schema
and RDF are not a perfect match, it would be useful to use XML Schema to
validate at least portions of an RDF/XML document, which means that RDF
should support the xsi: attributes w/o complaining and probably ignore them
for purposes of RDF-specific processing.
Anyway, just had to chime in here since I've previously visited this issue.
Regards,
Tom
Patrick Stickler wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>
>>>>-------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>xsi:schemaLocation -
>>>>
>>>>One could have an xml-element preceding rdf:RDF,
>>>>which carries this information -
>>>>
>>>>I'm not sure, whether RDF/XML parser generally be happy
>>>>with that - as they might conclude on RDF/XML not enclosed
>>>>by rdf:RDF .
>>>>
>>>>xsi:type cumbersome as well. It's use typically will result in
>>>>RDF/XML syntax errors.
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me one of the reasons, which make it difficult to
>>>>create XML schema for XML dialects as RDF/XML, which make
>>>>their content models in dependency of attribute configurations.
>>>>
>>>>One could think this is a problem of XMLSchema rather than RDF/XML -
>>>>but ...
>>>
>>>I think that the entire xsi: vocabulary is a mistake and reflects
>>>a certain arrogance of XML Schema over the broader XML community.
>>
>>Excuse me: XMLSchema is from the SAME standards organization RDF is.
>
>
> And how does that matter, exactly?
>
> Just because both RDF and XML Schema are both children of the W3C
> does not mean that they should be inextricably dependent.
>
>
>>>I don't expect that any RDF/XML parser should have to correctly
>>>interpret any xsi: vocabulary. RDF uses XML for its serialization,
>>>not XML Schema.
>>
>>How does this fit with http://dublincore.org/2002/07/31/dcmes-xml
>>Appendix B ??
>
>
> One may use XML Schema to define a particular content model without
> using any of the xsi: vocabulary in any instance of that content
> model.
>
> So I see no conflict with what I said and the XML Schemas referenced
> by the above document.
>
> Again, I'm not saying that RDF and XML Schema are in conflict, in
> principle, but simply that the use of xsi: vocabulary terms in
> an RDF/XML instance is not valid, and need not be required.
>
> It's of course interesting to note that RDF's striping syntax
> model cannot actually be captured by an XML Schema (though I
> have heard that RELAX NG is up to the task) so one might wish
> to ask the more appropriate question of why this is so, since
> both RDF and XML Schema are, after all, both defined by the W3C...
>
>
>>>I hope that in future editions of the XML Schema specs, the xsi:
>>>vocabulary would be deprecated.
>>
>>Is there activity by rdf-core to serve for?
>
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with the RDF Core WG.
>
>
>>Are you saying
>>http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2002/09/09/dc-xml-guidelines
>>
>>Recommendation 7 is to be deprecated?
>
>
> Well, not if you change the name from "Guidelines for implementing Dublin
> Core in XML" to "Guidelines for implementing Dublin Core in XML *Schema*"
> since the requirement to use xsi:type to capture key parts of the
> DC ontology require an XML Schema parser, not simply an XML parser.
>
>
[SNIP]
--
Thomas Habing
Research Programmer, Digital Library Projects
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
155 Grainger Engineering Library Information Center, MC-274
[log in to unmask], (217) 244-4425
http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu
|