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

"Perry A. Caro" wrote:
> Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> > > > It seems to me that the requirement to find the
> > > > namespace-related
> > > > portion of a URI in isolation is not reasonable.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > > > It's also
> > > > not clear to me
> > > > what purpose it serves.
> 
> One purpose would be reserialization of the model.  Doesn't anyone else need
> to do this?  We do.  Our processors are essentially filters: import RDF,
> modify it, export RDF, pass it down the chain.
> 
> Of course, our system doesn't concatanate the URI, so recovering the
> namespace is not an issue.

This is an issue for most people since the RDF syntax does not use XML namespaces (XML-NS) the way they were designed for :
- concatenation of namespace-name and element-name, instead of keeping it as a pair
- requirement for the namespace-name to be the schema's URI

You solved it by sticking to XML-NS specifications more than required by RDF M&S,
but the real problem is IMHO in the RDF syntax not being compliant with XML-NS.

  Pierre-Antoine