Re: QName URI Scheme Re-Visited, Revised, and Revealing

On Friday, August 24, 2001, at 03:02  AM, 
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> Here you're arguing my point precisely. If one source says...

OK, now I think I grasp what you're arguing. All you have to do 
is understand that:

RDF Does Not Deal With QNames

and everything's OK.

> And those two sources are syndicated at run-time, where both creators
> of the knowledge were unaware of the other's use of QNames, and 
> therefore
> could not forsee any potential problem of collision, we end up with the
> following ambiguous RDF triples:

The creators should have been thinking of URIs for their terms, 
not QNames.  Here's another maxim:

RDF Has No Concept Of Namespace

which solves a lot. Predicates are URIs alone, their "namespace" 
is nowhere to be found.

Now I will delete the rest of this thread from my mailbox,

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen