W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

RE: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:12:18 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEBOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Jan Grant:
> Since namespaces don't leak into rdf:parseType attributes, do you want
> 	"foo:Literal"
> to be the same as "rdf:Literal" if "foo" is declared as "the same"
> namespace as "rdf"?

I think this issue is *already present* in industry practice.

There is the well established parseType "daml:collection".

This licenses the construction of graphs using daml:List daml:first daml:nil
and daml:rest (modulo misrememberings).

In all example usages the namespace prefix "daml" is bound. In some of these
it is bound to a namespace relating to one version of daml, in some it is
bound to a different version of daml.

My understanding is that the intended URL refs daml:List, daml:first,
daml:nil, daml:rest can only be determined by looking at the binding of the
namespace prefix "daml".

See, for one binding



for another.

I fear we need to bite the bullet and allow namespaces to leak into
rdf:parseType attributes.
This is, in my view, very ugly. However, the XML schema people have already
done this and we cannot turn the clock back.

I also fear that if we wish to bless "daml:collection" the blessing is for
"foo:collection" whatever URI foo is bound to (a daml related one or

Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 07:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC