W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: XML Namespaces vs. RDF

From: HOLLANDER,DAVE (HP-FtCollins,ex1) <dave_hollander@am.exch.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:27:43 -0600
Message-ID: <56D553C0B61BD311AD2300A0C9F485C236C54F@xfc02.fc.hp.com>
To: "'caro@Adobe.COM'" <caro@Adobe.COM>, rdf-dev@mailbase.ac.uk, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Cc: xml-names-editor@w3.org

I fail to see the conflict.  

On Tuesday, July 20, 1999 Perry writes:
> It's this business about concatanating that worries me.  The XML namespace
> spec never mentions concatanation as a valid mechanism.  Indeed, the
> non-normative appendices seem to imply that the expansion of 
> qualified names should be treated as ordered pairs.
How we consider the expansion for definition is much different than
for processing. There is no limitation on how the namespace information is
be processed.

> ...
> Which is right?  Am I reading too much into Appendix A.3?  


> Is the
> concatanation mechanism suggested by RDF (and WebDAV, for that matter), a
> deviation from the XML namespace spec?

No, not only is A3 non-normative, it does not describe processing.

The only issue that I see is the fact that concatenation loses information,
your example shows. I this case the loss of the identity of the parts that
up the URI.  This does not seem to be a problem since the purpose is to
a web object, but I leave that to the experts in the RDF to decide.

Dave Hollander
Co-chair, XML Schema Working Group
email    - mailto:w3c-xml-schema-wg@w3.org
archive  - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/
homepage - http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html
Working Drafts - http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ 
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 11:28:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:12 UTC