W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: [Fwd: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification n eeded.]

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:39:58 +0200
Message-ID: <398670BE.79149C4C@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> > > It seems to me that the requirement to find the
> > > namespace-related
> > > portion of a URI in isolation is not reasonable.  It's also
> > > not clear to me
> > > what purpose it serves.
> >
[Brian McBride]
> >SiRPAC's java API only ever passes through the full URI - it
> >never passes through the URI split into the namespace part
> >and the rest.  If an RDF processor wishes to determine what
> >schema applies, perhaps to do validation or schema directed
> >editing, it needs to be able to figure out the right namespace.
[Graham Klyne]
> OK, that is an answer to my second question.  I do wonder if it's a real
> requirement.
> It seems reasonable to me that an application doing schema directed
> processing might have some kind of a priori knowledge of the schemas being
> used (by embedded labels, implied by the application, or other means), from
> which the URIs defined by each such schema can be deduced.

I agree with Graham.
Furthermore, why should the following be so strongly related
 - a Class or Property URI (that is, its *name*)
 - the URI of the schema defining/describing that Class or Property
As practical as it is (to give a clue to the parser about who describing what),
this should not be a fundamental requirement,
or then RDF uses *locators* instead of *identifiers*, and that's a shame because URLs are less general than URIs.

> (There's still a potential messy problem of two schemas that define the
> same URI.)

this anyway, would be a very *bad* design for a schema !
A schema writer should only use URIs "belonging" to him (i.e. over which he has control).

[Brian McBride]
> >So either the java api needs to change or there needs to be
> >a way to figure out the namespace.  I guess I'm uncomfortable
> >with Dan's suggestion of the parser adding statements to the
> >model - not its job to modify the model it is given really.

that's what magic with meta-data:
What if I say that the parser does not *modify* the model, but it annotates it...

Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2000 02:46:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:31 UTC