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

Re: procedure for determining reserved vocab

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:10:59 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020626150713.0218b180@15.144.25.13>
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 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:24 EDT