Steve writes:
However, using XML namespace prefixes in resource references inside RDF/XML documents tends to cause problems because not all RDF/XML parsers are smart enough to dereference the namespace prefix and build a fully-qualified resource URI. A safer form of the above would be
the fully qualified resource URI which looks like: <tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/botanical" />
It seems the discussion confuses QNames ("namespace-colon") and XML-Entities (ampersand-semicolon) - or am I confused???
An attempt to clarify: From my understanding, xml itself has no such thing as a namespace-colon in literals - xml-schema has introduced it as a convenient thing (QName). However, the use of xml-entities is a requirement of xml 1.0 itself. I agree with Rod that URIs are correct way for RDF:
rdf:resource="http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames/botanical"
and under no circumstances (even with RDF-xml-Schema) can we use
rdf:resource="tn:/botanical"
because RDF does not use QNames. However, we can use (if abbreviation is an issue, and providing an entity definition for it, as the protege examples do.)
rdf:resource="&tn;/botanical"
If RDF-parsers fail to deal with the latter, they are grossly non-interoperable with xml as a whole.
Gregor---------------------------------------------------------- Gregor Hagedorn (G.Hagedorn@bba.de) Institute for Plant Virology, Microbiology, and Biosafety Federal Research Center for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA) Königin-Luise-Str. 19 Tel: +49-30-8304-2220 14195 Berlin, Germany Fax: +49-30-8304-2203