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

Re: QName Problem Isn't One

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 11:33:09 -0500
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Message-ID: <B71AE6F4.AD41%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com> wrote:

>> IOW, we're not referring to one of the elements or attributes
>> "in" the XML Schema namespace -- [...]
> 
> Huh? We're referring to the names that are in the XML Namespace for
> W3C XML Schema.

Aha, I see the confusion. We're not. Can I make that more clear? These names
are not in the namespace -- XML Schema never uses them in namespaced XML.
They do not refer to attributes or elements. They're simply a bunch of URIs
that XML Schema has defined.

>> To confuse other processors by making them think we were
>> using XML Schema elements would be a serious mistake.
> 
> We're not using the "elemtns" as you call them. The elements
> themselves are an XML representation of the names that are named
> within a particular namespace. Anyone can use those names, in any
> appication, and to do so one must use the same namespace. The problem
> is the RDF mechanism for representing these names as URIs. Please do
> not confuse the RDF concatenation mechanism with XMLNS.

I'm not, but you seem to be. XMLNS is used to refer to elements and
attributes within a namespace. We're not doing that, therefore we do not
need to use the XML Schema namespace. We're not using anything in this
"namespace" -- why do we need to use the same namespace? (Or, what makes you
think we are referring to things in the XML Schema namespace.)

>> We would not want the namespaces to be equal, since they are not.
> Well, if you're not using the XSD set of names, then fine... but then
> you can't refer to them as XSD datatypes - they're a whole different
> bunch of things.

Why? XML Schema Part 2 clearly defines that they are URIs for XML Schema
Datatypes.

>> This is a tenuous area, I admit. RDF does not state the meaning
>> of the namespaces which it uses, but nor does XMLNS.
> Yep, and this is the crux of the matter. If XMLNS had clearly
> indicated the semantics behind XML namespaces, then we would not be in
> this mess.

Rather, I think the opposite. If it had indicated semantics, this mess might
exists. As of now, it does not. Why do you think otherwise?

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 12:33:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT