W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

Re: CURIEs vs. QNames

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:10:15 -0500
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@afp.com>
Cc: "'Mark Birbeck'" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <877jbjc8oo.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@afp.com> was heard to say:
| Hi Norman,
|> 
|> My concern is that you seem to be introducing a new way to define
|> something that is lexically indistinguishable from and conceptually
|> similar to a QName that may appear in contexts where QNames may
|> appear.
|
| CURIEs are lexically different from QNames:

Different, or a superset?

| With "cat" defined as "http://iptc.org/category/" (it's an example),
| consider:  <iptc:subject code="cat:15000000" />
|
| "cat:15000000", after being expanded to "http://iptc.org/category/15000000",
| could unambiguously identify the concept "Sport".

But wouldn't

  <iptc:subject code="cat:sport" />

mean that "cat:sport", after being expanded to "http://iptc.org/category/sport",
could unambiguously identify the concept "Sport"?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 18:10:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT