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

RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:53:35 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114B516@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, sean@mysterylights.com

My apologies for not being clearer... I was of course not arguing
against the design of layered specifications. That's a no brainer.

What I had meant to say was that the present method employed
by RDF to map QNames to URIs results in the potential loss of 
a distinction (be it syntactic or semantic) between QNames having
different namespaces -- a distinction which is IMO defined clearly
in the XML NS spec. 

The present treatment of QNames by RDF, therefore, does not simply 
extend or add to the functional layer defined by XML Namespaces,
but rather weakens or violates that layer by failing to maintain such 
QName distinctions. 

As such, RDF (mis-)uses QNames in a way that is not compatible with
the XML Namespace spec.

Was that worded better?

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 16 August, 2001 17:45
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: aswartz@upclink.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; 
> sean@mysterylights.com
> Subject: RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> (removing www-rdf-logic from cc: list)
> 
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > > in an RDF
> > > document your examples ns1:defg and ns2:efg are the same. I
> > > don't see what the issue is. RDF uses QNames as nothing more
> > > than an abbreviation mechanism.
> >
> > But then one might argue that RDF mis-uses QNames, since the XML
> > NS spec does not define such a usage.
> 
> You might argue that way, but you'd be arguing against the design of
> layered specifications that drives much of W3C's work.
> 
> By analogy: The XML 1.0 spec doesn't define a usage of XML for cookie
> recipies, nor for reinventing RPC over HTTP. Yet is has been used for
> both. Those specs take what XML 1.0 (or XML 1.0 plus 
> namespaces) offers,
> and add additional usage patterns so that folk can get some 
> particular job
> done. RDF does the same.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 14:53:41 GMT

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