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: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:42:39 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F23932C@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN'" <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Cc: RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Pierre-Antoine,

> 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

Perhaps I have misunderstood the relationship between the URI of a
property and its namespace.  What is your understanding of what m&s
says on this?

> 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.

I didn't follow that bit.  How does the relationship between
namespaces and URI's restrict RDF to using locators?

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

That's what I'd like to see happen.  I am concerned about whether
the annotations can ever be harmful.  If an application can
clearly distinguish between the original model and the annotions
then, aside from implementation convenience, there should be no
problem.  I'd be more concerned if one couldn't distinguish them.


Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2000 05:43:02 UTC

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