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

RE: RDF speficiations (was RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 16:36:42 -0000
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEJLCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> Of note, realize that the XML Namespaces recommendation
> states that _XML Namespace names_ (which are URI references
> according to RFC
> 2396) must be compared as _literal strings_, so that even reasonable URI
> comparison operators (such as those that expand relative URI
> references into
> absolute URIs before string comparison) may not be used to equate XML
> Namespace names. For example:
> http://www.w3.org/foo and
> http://WWW.W3.ORG/foo
> name _different_ XML Namespaces.

That's all well and good, but RDF while depending on XML Namespaces due to
its dependency on XML does not explicitly agree or disagree with this
draconian position. RDF, the graph labelled with URIs may or may not conform
with XML Namespaces behaviour. It hasn't been specified and no-one knows
(hence my earlier posting today on the topic of URIs in RDF).

Given that RFC 2396 explicitly discusses equivalent URIs upto and including
the default port numbers for protocols, but excluding dynamic equivalences
and fucntional equivalences between URLs; it would be a plausible RDF
implementation that regarded URIs as equal according to RFC 2396

Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 11:37:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC