- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:46:38 +0100
- To: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>
- CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org
minor correction Turner, David wrote: > If I use a namespace 'ns', in some places in the XML the entity '&ns;' > has to be used; I may want to use an entity '&ns;' - there is a style of writing RDF/XML, supported by some tools (e.g. Jena XML output module), in which all the namespace prefixes are also defined as entities. > if the namespace is called 'amp' then you cannot use > '&' because that entity is already defined. I'm led to believe that > corner-cases to do with namespaces are a recurring support issue in > Jena, which suggests that getting them correctly specified would be a > nightmare, and that it's safer to leave it up to implementors to worry > about them. In this particular case, jena currently simply does not use that particular entity. A different implementation may opt to rename the prefix from amp to ampx, so that this idiom works. There are many many more examples of where the level mismatch between namespaces and ontologies would cause problems, if implementations were not free to discard or rename namespace prefixes. In practice, users don't like this, so implementations are under significant pressure to keep this to a minimum. Jeremy > -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 20 April 2007 09:47:07 UTC