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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 13:22:21 +0200
Message-ID: <3993E1ED.57D34127@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
> > the document/document fragment describing a property is *not* the property, and they should not be mandated to have the same URI (though I admit this is a very practical way of naming properties...)
> This used to bother me a lot, until I came to a more abstract view of
> what something like http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_main is a name for.
> Or something like http://example.com/xmlns-evocab/v1.
> It's a 'thing known to the Web' that can expose different renderings of
> itself according to contextual circumstance.

That's why I don't see why a property is mandated to have its URI of the form


A property named


is just as fine to me, and some adequate service should be able to retrieve the part of 
http://somewhere.org/someschema defining it !


--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Friday, 11 August 2000 07:10:51 UTC

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