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: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:18:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10576C36B@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> > > 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


> > The fact is that qnames and URIs are two competing schemes for
global
> > naming, and URIs do not support the structure and contextual
semantics
> > defined for qnames -- therefore a fully bidirectional mapping
without
> > loss of information is just not possible. URIs will always represent
> > less information than a qname.

> I think of this as a purist's approach and although I can sympathize
with

The part about "is just not possible" is the key point.  The two models
are so similar that it is very seductive to imagine them reconciling (if
even just a bit).  But Patrick is right: the two are apples and oranges,
and *fundamentally* a bidirectional mapping "is just not possible".
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 02:18:37 GMT

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