- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:10:47 -0500
- 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 UTC