 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Tue Jan 14 15:19 MET 2003 > X-RAL-MFrom: <[log in to unmask]> > X-RAL-Connect: <mshieldserver1.oclc.org [132.174.29.209]> > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:18:46 -0500 > From: "Wagner,Harry" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Phase 2 Application Interface > To: [log in to unmask] > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 > tests=EXCHANGE_SERVER,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 > version=2.43 > > Roland, > > > Why one should not follow suggestions made by W3C ? > > What is the "one big structure" you mention? > > The issue here is not whether or not to follow W3C recommendations, but > rather, how to type the return value from registry Web services. In other > words, if the services respond with RDF what should that look like to the > client code (a String?)? ?? Could you give two samples - i'm not sure whether we're talking about the same thing. > > > I don't think there is a (real) problem with rdf:ID/rdf:bagID . > > In connection with xml:base it is just style - > > In-line references can present a problem with soap and RDF - if you typing > the RDF into XML. How that? It's no worse as with relative URI's or fragments. > > > Observe that in the meantime Core-RDF has bNodeID's. I will > > get to that later on dc-architecture. > > Regards, > Harry > > > rs > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > >