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

RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:33:03 -0600
Message-ID: <C5E6B2ABE291D5119A3800508B9553A51A3D46@cormails8.jdedwards.com>
To: "'Piotr Kaminski '" <pkaminsk@home.com>, "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org '" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "'SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz '" <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
I am confused guys. When exactly did a URI become a Unique Resource
Identifier from being a Uniform Resource Identifier?.


If there is no requirement for being unique for a derived URI, whats big
deal if two QNames derive same URI?.


Sateesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Piotr Kaminski
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc: SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz
Sent: 8/17/01 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

Aaron Swartz said:
> It's when you start claiming that different
> QNames must be disjunct and that URIs are really made up of two
> parts that you go off the deep end.

URIs are not made up of two parts (in general).

But how can you say that it's acceptable to consider different QNames to
be the same?  If I wanted them to be the same, then I would've picked
the
same URI and local name.  If I didn't do that, what gives you the right
to
merge them?

        -- P.

--
  Piotr Kaminski <piotr@ideanest.com>  http://www.ideanest.com/
  "It's the heart afraid of breaking that never learns to dance."
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 12:31:58 GMT

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