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

Re: Q to implementers: Resource identifiers - XML Names and/or (concatenated) URIs? (was RE: rdfs.isDefinedBy...)

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 16:09:06 -0400
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-id: <002601c20ff1$827a3fe0$f6193044@tbp>

[Uche Ogbuji]

> > - the suggested URI -> XML Names splitting method is so flawed as to not
be
> > responsibly implementable (i.e. you can't generate valid LocalParts by
> > splitting on non-Name characters, but can if splitting on non-NCName
> > characters. However, using the latter method produces differently
invalid
> > results, e.g. if splitting
> > urn:NewsML:afp.com:20000811:010607144425.x6pxrl6k:1)
>
> Yes.  We have run into this problem quite a bit at Fourthought because we
use
> UUID URNs in many projects.  The only solution we have found is a horrible
> hack: to give resources UUIDs, and also aliases in forms that are
compatible
> with RDF/XML, and then introduce equivalence statements between the ID and
> alias.
>
> I think the WG desperately needs to fix this.
>
>

Yes - what Uche said.

There must be only one way to go from URI references to prefixes and back
again. That way should be compatible with XML Namespaces.  It should always
be possible to use prefixes as aliases for a "base" URI to make it easier to
read and write RDF/XML by hand (I say "base" in quotes to distinguish it
from "xml:base", since the two may not turn out to be the same).  After all,
it's done all the time in N3, why not everywhere?

Cheers,

Tom P
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2002 16:08:01 GMT

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