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

RE: RDF Issues

From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 08:36:48 -0400
Message-ID: <849D30D91B33D41181EB00B0D020AA8C6ABF7B@mail.hq.bowstreet.com>
To: "'Bill dehOra'" <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Great! I was going to do it but you saved me the effort.

I had a quick look and one thing immediately stood out. In 2.2.3 there is a
section entitled "Schemas and Namespaces". It seems to be on first thought
that the *model* by itself has nothing to do with XML Namespaces. The model
should just talk about everything being a URI and the whole tie-in with XML
Namespaces only comes into play once you serialized.

In particular, the statement "In order to avoid confusion between
independent -- and possibly conflicting -- definitions of the same term, RDF
uses the XML namespace facility" actually seems wrong. RDF doesn't use XML
namespaces to avoid conflict. It uses URIs and those URIs just happen to
manifest as namespace URIs in the XML serialization.

James Tauber, Director XML Technology, Bowstreet
jtauber@bowstreet.com  http://www.bowstreet.com/
<pipe>Ceci n'est pas une pipe</pipe>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill dehOra [mailto:wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 8:23 AM
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RDF Issues
> About time. 
> Attached is a reference copy I use: it has most of the syntax aspects
> stripped out.
> -Bill de hÓra 
> >So a useful thing to start with might be a version of the rdf 
> >m&s spec that
> >is just the m, without any changes to the model. Once we 
> have that as a
> >straw man, we can discuss the issues relating purely to the 
> >model and keep
> >them orthogonal to the syntax.
> >
> >James 
Received on Friday, 8 September 2000 08:37:52 UTC

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