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

Re: Using urn:publicid: for namespaces

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:39:34 +0100
Message-ID: <047401c12462$2b940380$43dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Stephen Cranefield" <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the use of label solves
> the problem, or whether it is the explicit URI that is the point
> of your example.

The explicit URI!

> If it's the explicit URI used to identify the resource, then yes,
> that makes the concept's URI independent of the schema
> location, but that doesn't seem to be common practice. [...]
> Does this mean that RDF Schema is a bad example to follow?
> If so, what is the current best practice?

Yes, RDF Schema is a bad example to follow, and yes, the "ID" thing is
a bit of broken markup, but it was put in because of the worries about
the fact that FragmentIDs on XML languages always reference whatever
the XML ID in that language is. Of course, RDF works in such a way
that this is pointless, but obviously this wasn't caught early enough
to purge it from the specification.

TimBL discusses it a bit at the bottom of [1]. I'd advise people to
always use "rdf:about" as a best current practice.

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 21:39:23 GMT

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