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

Re: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:03:07 -0400
Message-Id: <200108171302.JAA20372@granger.mail.mindspring.net>
Cc: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
On Friday, August 17, 2001, at 08:04  AM, 
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> c.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-
> interest/2001Jun/0151.html

Claim 1: Agreed.

Claim 2: Agreed.

Claim 3: You seem to be saying that RDF/XML's use of QNames for 
properties does not work for all URIs/URI schemes. Agreed, this 
is on the issue list. This is not an issue with RDF, but merely 
its XML serialization. Would you be happy with a way of spelling 
out the property, like the difference between foo:bar and 
<http://foo/bar> in N3? That seems like the minimum necessary 
solution. I'd imagine something like:

<rdf2:propName 
rdf2:name="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date">value</rdf2:propName>

(I'm not suggesting that the RDF Core WG actually add this, 
merely providing it as an example of a possible solution.)

Claim 4: I see no reason why different QNames need to map to 
disjunct resources. Why is this necessary?

However, you seem to go on from these claims to all sorts of 
crazy redefinitions of RDF.

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 09:03:00 GMT

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