Hi Steve /all
We took that syntax straight from Roger's RDF/TCS examples. I think
Roger was going to do more work on tidying up those sorts of loose
ends. I have to admit that my knowledge of RDF and particularly RDFS
is pretty superficial
We can switch to either the shorter format or the safer fully
qualified URI - what do people think would be better?
Sally
By the way, the IPNI example you cite has an error:
<tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource="&tn;#botanical" />
Many RDF/XML parsers will see &tn; as an entity which cannot be
resolved. Since I don't have a copy of the ontology (and
http://tdwg.org/2006/03/12/TaxonNames does not resolve), I can only take
a guess that it should look something like:
<tn:nomenclaturalCode rdf:resource="tn:botanical" />
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" />
-Steve
*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** S.Hinchcliffe@rbgkew.org.uk
_______________________________________________
TDWG-GUID mailing list
TDWG-GUID@mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-guid