Re: CURIEs vs. QNames

/ "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> was heard to say:
| Hi Henry,
|
|> if someAttribute is interpreted as a QName, its value is
|> 
|>    < "http://example.org/" , "foo" >
|> 
|> whereas if it's interpreted as a CURIE, its value is
|> 
|>    "http://example.org/foo"
|> 
|> which is seriously different.
|> 
|> Different semantics, please use a different syntax!
|
| The semantics are in fact the same since it's only when:
|
|   { "http://example.org/" , "foo" }
|
| is interpreted by some RDF/A processor that it 'becomes' a URI. This is much
| the same as for an RDF/XML parser--you leave things as {URI, local-name} for
| as long as possible (conceptually) and only at the last moment interpret
| them as a URI.
|
| However, even if they were 'URIs' as such (i.e., even if there is a
| difference between 'interpretations' in the way that you describe), this
| would still not be going against the TAG finding of March 2004 [1]. I'll
| quote what is for me the key section, with my comments interspersed:

My objection (and Henry's I think) has nothing to do with the TAG
finding or the relative merits of QNames vs. URIs per se.

My concern is that you seem to be introducing a new way to define
something that is lexically indistinguishable from and conceptually
similar to a QName that may appear in contexts where QNames may
appear.

If there is any context in which this fragment could appear

   <any:Vocab xmlns:p="http://example.org/">
     <html:xxx someAttribute="p:lname"/>
   </any:Vocab>

and the interpretation of p:lname would not be the tuple
(http://example.org/,lname), I think that's a real problem.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.