W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Using urn:publicid: for namespaces

From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:08:55 +1200
Message-ID: <B57613845A50D211864C0000F8FA5C28042074BD@mars.otago.ac.nz>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sean Palmer wrote:
> > 1) The name assigned to a concept within a schema (which is
> > unique)
> > 2) A location of the definition of the concept
> 
> Where 2) is, of course, just a variant of 1).

This is far from obvious to me.  In fact, I believe that a name and
a definition are fundamentally different and that this convention
is well established in logic and mathematics.  What happens if the
schema is replicated on two different servers (and can therefore be
accessed via two URLs) - do the concepts defined in the schema now
have two names?

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince people to change existing usage,
but as I am personally uncomfortable with it I would like to
understand the implications of and infrastructure necessary to
use alternative forms of naming for schemas and their defined
concepts.

- Stephen
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 18:07:37 GMT

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