Hi Egon,

Egon Willighagen wrote:
> Hi Nina,
>
> On 11/30/09, chung <chvng at mail.ntua.gr> wrote:
>   
>>       * Change all rdf:datatype= “&xsd;string” to
>>         rdf:datatype=”xsd:string”.
>>     
>
> What is the reason for that? These should really be equivalent...
> (given NS and ENTITY's are defined properly)
>
>   
I guess the RDF snippet submitted to the W3C validator was not complete.
W3C validator is happy about entire owl file with instances, which uses
the first syntax.

 http://opentox.org/data/documents/development/RDF%20files/ExampleOWL/view
>> Use more specific datatypes when
>>         possible. For example: <dc:identifier
>>         rdf:datatype=”xsd:anyURI”>http://valid/uri</dc:identifier>
>>       * Identifiers such as xsd:nonPositiveInteger and
>>         xsd:positiveInteger could be used instead of xsd:int in some
>>         cases. See http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ for reference.
>>     
>
> Agreed. Allows for more automatic validation.
>
> I hope to be able to schedule time before x-mass to look at the RDF in
> detail (and write a Bioclipse plugin...), but I need to finish a few
> other things first.
>
>   
Hopefully we'll have stable API and services till then :)

Regards,
Nina
> Egon
>
>