[oslc-core] Guidance on URI design for RDF/XML representations

[Ian Green1]

What is the guidance on how RDF vocabulary terms should be chosen so as to 
ensure they are directly representable in RDF/XML (eg see [1])?

For example, the triple

        <http://example.com/req> <http://example.com/ns/1> "value of 
property 1".

can't be directly represented in RDF/XML because one can't write the 
property "http://example.com/ns/1" as an XML QName.   (OSLC V2.0 
representations don't admit reification of RDF properties in general).

I ask because we're allowing users to define their own vocabulary terms 
and we're struggling with how to express these constraints to the 
end-user, as well as concerned that other applications and vocabulary 
designers don't consider all RDF resource formats.  Since OSLC V2 requires 
RDF/XML format, it is unlikely today that OSLC consumers & providers will 
encounter RDF that can't be represented in RDF/XML, but this doesn't seem 
like a robust position as we move into V3.

My first stab at the definition is "Each and every user-supplied RDF URI 
Reference MUST be representable as an XML QName".   (This is a sufficient 
condition but it might not be a necessary one.) 

best wishes,
    -ian

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0124.html


ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
IBM Rational
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20131011/702cbf6c/attachment-0003.html>