W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: RDF Issue #rdfms-qname-uri-mapping

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:30:59 -0800
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020121142417.02243800@pop.intergate.ca>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 10:15 PM 21/01/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>You may be interested in this
>
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html
>
>which also suggests that refining the definitions of and relationships between resources, URI's, URI refs and namespaces is a task for the TAG.

Your draft is to the point but phrased in an awfully abstract 
way.  I think that it's easier for most people (for me certainly)
to talk over abstract issues when there are concrete examples 
attached.  In this case, I think Jonathan's concern about the
RDF address-generation-by-concatenation model highlights a
few of these issues, and any policy which addresses these 
issues ought to imply a resolution to that dispute as well.  So
if you wanted to send that to the TAG, I'd add a note highlighting
this issue as a concrete example.

BTW, at the moment I share Jonathan's concern over the 
concatenation model of URI generation and don't think 
you ought to rush to close this issue.  Having said that,
I'm a bit out of date with the recent debate.  But having
said that, if Jonathan's right that RDF and Schema are
out of sync on this, that's a REAL architectural red flag. 
-Tim
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 17:31:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT