>
> The provenance information for the translation relies heavily on rdf:ID. If
> we do not offer the provenance info as a service then we avoid this problem,
> but are still faced with the encoding problem (see below).
>
> > In, the SOAP primer at
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part0-20021219/
> >
> > section 5.2 shows RDF/XML encoded in SOAP using an RDF-specific
> > env:encodingStyle. Will something like that work for the DC
> > descriptions? Or are there subtleties I'm not seeing? Quite probably!
>
> I need to play around with this a bit, but I believe this will look, to the
> client, like one big structure. I'm not sure that is particularly useful.
> I think it would be more useful to deliver an XML document that conforms to
> a published schema. Anyone else have any thought on this?
Why one should not follow suggestions made by W3C ?
What is the "one big structure" you mention?
I don't think there is a (real) problem with rdf:ID/rdf:bagID .
In connection with xml:base it is just style -
Observe that in the meantime Core-RDF has bNodeID's. I will
get to that later on dc-architecture.
rs
>
> Regards,
> Harry
>
>
|