W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:10:47 -0500
Message-ID: <00bb01c2891f$2bded310$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

Tim Bray wrote:
>
> Suppose I have namespaces L1 and L2 and there's a DTD L.dtd that you can
> use with either.  So in the RDDL for L1 I say:
>
> - the nature of L.dtd is that it's a DTD
> - the purpose of L.dtd is strict-validation
>
> and in the RDDL for L2 I say
>
> - the nature of L.dtd is that it's a DTD
> - the purpose of L.dtd is forgiving-validation
>
> Now the 2nd RDF assertions in the two RDDLs are in conflict.  The reason
> is that they involve 2 different namespaces, but the namespace doesn't
> get into the RDDL.  But it could, be cause we know the URI of the
> namespace ("" - this is the namespace doc remember) so we can make
> assertions about it.  Jonathan was proposing something like
>
> - "" has a property called strict-validation-schema whose value is L.dtd
> - the nature of L.dtd is that it's a DTD

Actually I expect to be able to say any of:

"" has a property
"DTD" has a property
"foo" has a property

That is, this name "DTD" or "foo" is a name local to a namespace. We might
also make statements about the namespace itself by using the 'blank'
localname ""

In general I'd like to hold onto some form of the idea that a namespace is
some sort of container of names. The properties don't need to be attached
directly to the namespace URI itself, rather to URIrefs which start-with the
namespaceURI and which correspond to names that are local to the namespace.

Just a few corrections for the moment...

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 20:30:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT