[Nml-wg] Relation mapping XML-RDF (subPropertyOf)

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi All;

I dont really have a strong opinion either way, I suppose that 3 works 
best but does place extra work on someone's plate to fully define all 
relation types.

-jason

On 1/16/12 8:08 AM, thus spake Jeroen van der Ham:
> On 16 Jan 2012, at 12:45, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>> 2. Use a URI in both XML and RDF/OWL.
>>    Con: this makes the XML verbose (even if
>>    Pro: easier to define new relation types (users can define their own
>>         relation URI, even without involvement of the OGF)
>>
>
> This is not necessarily more verbose. I've often seen the use of entities (e.g.&nml; ) in XML attributes to do just that. Only problem is that often XML producers don't automatically include such a conversion.
>
> I would prefer indeed option 3 or 2.
>
> Using a separate namespace for defining those relations does make sense. I have no problem in defining it that way.
>
>
> Jeroen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg