Re: name that URI was: Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

/ "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> was heard to say:
| Patrick Stickler wrote:
|> On 2002-01-29 3:46, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> wrote:
[...]
|> I'm presuming it is http://example.org/foo-schema-ns#bongo, right?
|
| No, see it is more complicated. Strictly speaking there is no URI assigned,
| but assume the attribute "id" is of type ID i.e.
|
| <!DOCTYPE xsd:schema "-//..." [
| <!ATTLIST xsd:complexType id ID "">
| ]
|
| Now the _baseURI_ is http://example.com/XSD.xsd
|
| and the ID is composed as a fragment identifier (well now _assume_ that
| XPointer is the fragid syntax for application/xml)
|
| so the URI would be:
|
| http://example.com/XSD.xsd#foo
|
| entirely different that what you suspected!

Well, it's true that http://example.com/XSD.xsd#foo identifies the
element in question, but it's not clear that
http://example.org/foo-schema-ns#foo does not. That would depend on what
XML resource the server returned on a request to retrieve the resource
identified by the URI http://example.org/foo-schema-ns

| What I am saying is that XML Schema identifies types by QName (using its own
| rules) and that the _base_ simple Type URIs were explicitly created as they
| are specified in XML Schema.
|
| The problem is way deeper than '#'

I've never understood the RDF convention of assuming that {uri}#Name
would identify a resource. A # is a fragment identifier and in the
absence of a different fragment identifier scheme for RDF documents
(which would have other problems), the thing that comes after the #
has to be a name and that name has to be an ID in the document.

In particular {uri}#Name could be something entirely different than
what RDF seems to expect.

| You argue to proceed. But proceeding without an architectural solution is
| what created this mess in the first place. Sometimes  babies need clean
| bathwater, else an epidemic of cholera.

Indeed. I can see how one could assert that some arbitrary URI was associated
with the XML Schema simple type "string", but I don't (immediately) see how
that could be extended to the subtype my:string defined in my schema, and I
imagine we want to enable both.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | Simplicity is always a virtue.--Edward Abbey
XML Standards Engineer |
XML Technology Center  | 
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 17:33:56 UTC