W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2004

RE: Incompatibilities in RDQL implementations

From: Kirkham, Pete (UK) <pete.kirkham@baesystems.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 11:20:00 +0100
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-id: <820DBA1A8ECA1D45A557AFD03CF4DEE06E4FD6@glkms0015>

> * the number of cases where the qname and uri schemes were likely to
> clash was small and could be avoided with sensible queries, and

So if I use the prefix 'sandy' and two years later the 'sandy' peer to peer protocol registers it as a uri scheme, my queries stop being sensible? In my world our data has lifecycles of decades, and languages which map the syntax to the semantics in a closed fashion win. There is no reason to force these namespaces together in an environment where you can't predict the consequence and introduces either the need to choose arbitarily obscure prefix names, or a maintenance overhead. (Though you could define the language such that any prefix definition binds a token more strongly than the uri scheme of the same name, so that may not be a problem for the machine, only future maintainers.)

> * potentially, being able to embed RDF queries in XML meant that it
> was probably best to avoid < >

There are other characters that are not used to denote XML tags or entities and are invalid in uris; if being able to cut and paste into XML is a big problem you could use them. Alternatively, either use escaping or CDATA to quote the queries as text, and define an XML encoding of the abstract syntax if you want to do useful things with them in XML.


This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 06:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:51 UTC