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

RE: RDF Issues

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:32:16 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2393BB@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'James Tauber'" <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "'Bill dehOra'" <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> 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.
> > 
> > >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 

Thats a good point.  Is it also related to clarifying the
relationship between the model, namespaces and schemas?  The
current specs say that each property is associated with a unique
schema and each schema relates to a namespace.  At least I think
thats what it is trying to say.

Brian 
Received on Friday, 8 September 2000 09:32:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT