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: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:14:04 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000801161206.00b0ef00@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: caro@Adobe.COM
Cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 03:33 PM 7/31/00 -0700, 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.

Oh yes, I agree that's an important goal.

But does that goal need to be achieved on URIs in isolation?  (Your own 
solution effectively maintains additional contextual information).

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2000 13:15:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT