RE: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

> 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
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil.daml

and

http://www.daml.org/2000/12/daml+oil.daml

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
otherwise).

Jeremy