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@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg