W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2002

namespaces as punctuation, was: new semantics initiative

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:42:50 -0400
Message-ID: <3D0741CA.9ABA927E@openhealth.org>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> 
> >>>patrick hayes said:
> 
> <snip amount="lots"/>
> > (6) Does this require any changes to syntax/ test cases/ Ntriples/ 
> > datatyping/ whatever?
> > A: No.
> 
> Until you had used the word 'namespace' in the bit I've cut from
> above, I would say no.  When namespace appears in the MT, I'm
> worried.
> 
> I just went and checked in the MT WD, and you do use it a few more
> times than I expected.  Hmm!
> 
> Patrick Stickler has said elsewhere that "namespaces are punctuation"
> which is a bit strong, but for RDF/XML that is mostly correct.  RDF
> does not have namespaces in the model (theory).
> 

Yes, well I don't agree that XML namespaces are just punctuation, but
that is not important for this discussion -  I agree with what you say
here. I suggest that the RDF MT can provide for sets of asserted and
unasserted triples, or even for any number sets of triples colored by
whatever name one wishes. For the purposes of RDF/XML _syntax_ the
namespace is a perfectly reasonable way to distinguish which triples are
intended to go into which bucket in an unambiguous and monotonic -- even
monotonous -- fashion. I don't suggest that namespaces are the only way,
simply that for the purposes of RDF/XML they can provide a _purely
syntactic_ way for a parser to flip triples into buckets ... and with
perhaps minimal, but nonzero, changes to the syntax.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 08:46:38 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:14 EDT