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

Re: Formation of RDF terms

From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:58:43 +0000 (GMT)
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101252350001.27980-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

[snip]

The basic problem is that the RDF Model doesn't like to grubby itself
with worldly things like constraints on allowable URI syntaxes for the
resources named within RDF. RDF syntax(es) can constrain their
particular concrete encodings of RDF all they like, but all the time we
go around saying "the abstract model's the thing" we have to stick with
the possibility that model-only applications may be creating apps that don't
live by the constraints of some particular RDF syntactic encoding.

If we said that, regardless of syntax, RDF predicates should be named
with URIs whereby a regular-expression split can separate it into
namespace-name and name-within-the-namespace parts, that'd be one way.

I'm not sure how we decide whether to make that leap. Right now we
don't; which means urn:uuid:3242340623324314890324 and suchlike are fine
names for RDF predicates (albeit non-representable in RDF 1.0 XML
syntax). It would take a errata or amendment at the RDF model layer for
us to make these kinds of assumptions. While it feels icky making rules
about URI string formats at the RDF model layer, perhaps a case might be
made that the practical benefits outweight considerations of
elegance...? 

Dan
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 19:00:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT