W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Re: rdfs:isDefinedBy (Was Re: Representing DCMI semantics asRDFschemas versus Web pages)

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 09:07:45 -0400
To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-id: <000a01c20c91$fc4a3c70$f6193044@tbp>

[Patrick Stickler]
>
> On 2002-06-05 5:10, "ext Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > [Bill de hÓra]
> >
> >
> >>> I disagree, Dan. The rdfs:isDefinedBy property does not point
> >>> to a namespace, but to a resource.
> >>
> >> Here's the question: Are XML namespaces RDF resources? If a
> >> collection of names identified by a URI reference can be an RDF
> >> resource, then an XML namespace can be an RDF resource.
> >>
> >
> > The actual value of an xml namespace (the identifier of a collection of
> > names) is a URI reference.  There could be a convention (or it could be
in
> > the Rec) that such a URI does identify an xml namespace as an RDF
resource.
> > After all, the uri reference for a namespace is supposed to be unique.
> >
> > An RDF resource can identify anything discussable, and a namespace is
> > discussable.
> >
> > It would make a lot of sense to me.
>
> I fully agree, and see no problems with a URI denoting a namespace, as
> a collection of names, but then that URI should not denote anything
> else, such as a functional vocabulary, a schema, a doctype, a "namespace
> document", etc. etc.
>

D'accord.

Tom P
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 09:06:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT