W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

RE: [rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6] CLOSED: Algorithm for creating a URI from a QName?

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:26:08 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9EFFD@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

This one goes to the heart of a URI in the role of a 
value or name, not an identifierAsPointer.  It does 
not 'identify' a resource by direction.  It is a member 
of a value pair whose role is to uniquely name a scope 
and assign an alias to that name.

It isn't an embarassment.  I think it highlights the 
multiple roles played by URIs, (eg, URLs and URNs).  The 
embarassment would be to indicate that these are not 
distinct roles when in fact and by clear example, they are.

A URI without a resource is a structured string value.  It may or 
may not be unique depending on the application or role of the value 
type.

len


From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [mailto:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk]

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:

> None, because it is not a URI and there's not a canonical way of
> mapping it to a URI.

So just to be sure we're on the same page, do you agree with DanC that
this means that the way in which XML 1.0 plus Namespaces makes use of
QNames is inconsistent with the principles of Web Architecture?

If so, isn't that a bit of an embarrassment, at least?
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 09:26:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT