RE: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

I sincerely doubt that whatever the W3C XML Schema working group ends up coming up with for identifying types in a schema document will map to whatever mechanism RDF uses. Anonymous types and local declarations are my main concern in this area. 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
	Sent: Thu 10/3/2002 8:55 AM 
	To: Julian Reschke 
	Cc: www-tag@w3.org 
	Subject: Re: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
	
	


	Julian Reschke wrote:
	> Hi,
	>
	> I think we need to consider the following questions...
	>
	>  If a "standard" mapping from QName to URI is defined, ....
	
	At the moment I don't observe a lot of people calling for this, and I'm
	not sure there is a good standard way to do it; as you point out it's
	tricky, and I'm highly unconvinced that RDF brute-force concatenation
	generalizes across applications.  Suppose we just say "in RDF they use
	qnames to stand in for URIs the same way that relative URI references
	are used, and they provide rules and that's OK" but don't try to generalize?
	
	At the last TAG F2F we heard that Schema is working on this for the case
	of user-defined types identified by qname, it'll be interesting to see
	what they come up with. -Tim