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

Re: Dedicated, Standardized URI Scheme for QNames?

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:47:22 +0100
Message-ID: <004401c12965$a15f5620$2bd993c3@Palmer>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>    qn:{name}:{namespace}

Flaw in the plan: your new URI scheme has no way of representing the
difference between element, attribute, and other QNames. So it's useless,
QED. And you're making a backwards incompatable change to RDF in - we may
as well start again with RDF 2.0 in that case anyway!

I still cannot work out why you refuse to accept that QNames can be pointed
at in the model. I've shown how this corresponds to the appendix of XML
Names, I've shown how it causes no backwards incompatable changes to be
made to RDF, I've shown how it makes all syntax extension suggestions
totally pointless, and I've shown how it doesn't rely on anything other
than URIs, and doesn't requre anonymous nodes or literals.

The simple answer is right under your nose. RDF can say anything about
anything, so it can quite easily cope with as piffling a problem as
modelling QNames. The fact that you can't serialize certain URIs is a
separate problem (not fixed by your URI scheme proposal), and will
hopefully be solved in future version(s) of RDF, and alternate syntaxes.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 06:47:25 GMT

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