- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:10:59 +0100
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 10:55 23/06/2002 -0700, R.V.Guha wrote: [...] >This can be done in one of three ways: >(1) We invent a new uri prefix (such as log: so that a reserved vocab. >item such as implies will have a uri such as >log:www.w3.org/cwm#implies). The second part of the uri is the uri for >the layer defining the term. >(2) We use normal http uris and embed this somewhere in the middle of >the uri. eg., http://www.w3.org/reserved/cwm#implies or >http://www.w3.org/reserved/http://oasis.org/cwm#implies. This violates >the principle that uris should be opaque. >(3) We use an appropriate encoding convention for the reserved vocab. >item's Qname. e.g., instead of "implies", we use Log_CWM_implies. While >this violates its own set of principles, it does have the advantage of >not requiring a new namespace. It has been suggested that allocating a new URI scheme is a "big thing", like creating a new top level domain, and is best avoided if possible. Who is an expert on URI syntax - is the second ":" in (2) legal? What about the second "//"? I assume so since no one has barfed yet. We could just duck the second "http://" and it would still work. I don't understand 3. Could someone give an example. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:12:00 UTC