W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

GUIDE, LANG: xmlns, xml:base

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:55:46 +0100
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ENEKKODIOPDFKPGAOLNIEEACCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Two boring comments about guide review copy, and then some more interesting
observation.
[[
<rdf:rdf
    xmlns     ="#"
    xmlns:vin ="#"
]]
illegal
see
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-names-19990114-errata#NE04


[@@ TBD if OWL in fact supports both XML Base and URN naming.]

XML:base is legal in RDF/XML and so is legal in OWL.

See:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-xml-base


So, within the ontology document, the goal is to have vin be bound to the
current document.
The method of using relative namespace URIs is illegal.
Thus we have to commit to the URI of the document when defining it.
Should we require or advise the use of xml:base to ensure that variation in
the retrieval URI does not become problematic.
("variation in the retrieval URI" means that the document
http://www.w3.org/2003/??/owl-guide#
is also the very same document
hTtp://www.w3.org:80/2003/??/owl-guide#

however the URI resulting from an rdf:ID="foo" is different, and
particularly with an absolute namespace that binds vin to the former,
get-ting the latter makes rdf:ID="foo" refer to a different resource from
vin:foo.

A "You should use xml:base" could be an informative "should" in guide, or a
normative "SHOULD" in lang.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 14:52:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT