Everyone, What's the last word on RDF serialization and QNames---has this been settled, and if so, what's the authoritative document? I've found numerous discussions, but nothing definitive. The problem, as everyone probably knows, is that once an RDF+XML document is processed, all qnames are collapsed into static URIs. That's fine for RDF interpretation, but rough for re-serialization. I've read a document somewhere that describes how to guess at the original namespace+localname serialization given a URI (does anyone remember where to find this document?), but this doesn't work for some combinations such as http://www.w3.org/1999/xlinkhref (which would yield (http://www.w3.org/1999/, xlinkhref). More worrisome is an RDF graph that contains the URI "example:mynamespace-myproperty". I can't think of a way to serialize this---if serialized with the null namespace and a local name of example:mynamespace-myproperty, a namespace-aware XML processor would not give the correct result when re-interpreting the serialization. Perhaps the namespace could be serialized as "example:" and the local name as "mynamespace-myproperty", but is "example:" a valid namespace URI? Is the bottom line that, in cases like these, a serialization must draw arbitrary lines in the string just so the name will serialize using a (namespaceURI, localName) pair? Is there anything authoritative on this? Cheers, GarretReceived on Sunday, 12 October 2003 15:34:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2007 18:20:12 GMT