W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2006

Re: URI in RDF

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 02:43:35 +0100
To: "Carlos A Velasco" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.s6v9qxmtwxe0ny@pc031.coreteam.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:13:14 +0100, Carlos A Velasco  
<Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

Hi Carlos,

> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>> What is the use case?
> In fact, Johannes and I want to break a W3C Note-writing record, and we
> could not think of something else :-)

Seems like a valid reason to me :-)

> Seriously, I think that we are not consistent if we have on one side an
> earl:uri property for things like WebContent, and on the other hand, we
> have all the possibilities to decompose a URI in the HTTP in RDF when
> using the http:GetRequest, for instance. With that URI class and its
> properties, we may have a consistent way of expressing *any URI*, with
> the different schemes, and reuse it in the HTTP note. But maybe, it is
> only me who starts to have fun with namespaces ...

Right... I have no real objection to doing it beyond the fact that it  
takes time away from other stuff, but it is pretty simple and I am  
inclined to trust you guys to just get it right, so it doesn't have to  
take my time away.

I am more wondering if there is a current need for it that you have, or if  
it's because it will be useful. I can see it having some application in  
distinguishing mailto: and http: schemes at least.



Charles McCathieNevile                     chaals@opera.com
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
      Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 24 March 2006 01:43:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:53 UTC