RE: Formation of RDF terms

Dave Beckett wrote:
>
> ... and this is exactly what we have been discussing.  This property
> allows the relationship to be made without doing any delving into
> parsing URIs - which isn't possible for general URIs.  I think RDF
> shouldn't get into this game.

Unfortunately RDF is already in this game in RDF M&S 1.0. Every typedNode
qname is converted into a URI which is the subject of the rdf:type. As we
know this is fine for 'RDF aware' namespaces but broken for namespaces which
end in a letter or number e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema, this
acute problem this causes is the definition of XSD datatypes e.g.:

<xsd:unsignedInt rdf:about="http://www.foo.org/someNumber/123">
	...
</xsd:unsignedInt>

Ought RDF applications use XML Schema datatypes?

What triples ought be generated? Certainly not:
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchemaunsignedInt

N3 already appends a '#' to such namespaces in a bind.

-Jonathan