Hilmar, Protege seems to be right, it is clearly no good URI and we should probably use 3 rdfs:replaces instead in this case. I was just surprised to see that the W3C rdf validator validates the file perfectly fine. A strange world.
Markus
On Feb 22, 2009, at 23:44, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
Well they prevent the ontology from loading in Protege. Are you saying that the java.net.URI parser has a bug?
-hilmar
On Feb 22, 2009, at 5:34 PM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
Those URIs will not resolve, they are URIs to elements that only ever appeared in XML schemas in the past. They are needed in there for completeness.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Hilmar Lapp hlapp@duke.edu wrote:
On Feb 22, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John R. WIECZOREK wrote:
Just a quick answer right now to point you to rdf for the DwC (similar to Dublin Core's rdf) that has just begun the review process as a TDWG Standard.
Awesome! This is going to be really useful I think.
-hilmarBTW the file at the above URL doesn't parse (at least not in Protege).
"[line=127:column=796] URI 'http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/curatorial/YearIdentified-2003-06-17, MonthIdentified-2003-06-17, DayIdentified-2003-06-17' cannot be resolved against curent base URI http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/rdf/dwcterms.rdf"
(The root exception is java.net.URISyntaxException: Illegal character in path at index 60: http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/curatorial/YearIdentified-2003-06-17, MonthIdentified-2003-06-17, DayIdentified-2003-06-17)
--
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
--
: Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- hlapp at duke dot edu :
tdwg-tag mailing list tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag