- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:52:00 -0600
- To: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
- CC: Stephane Corlosquet <stephane.corlosquet@deri.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Because the are *namespace* URIs, not *vocabulary* URIs. They were never intended to be expanded by concatenating the expanded prefix with the value after the colon. QNames are never concatenated - they are treated as a tuple. CURIEs are ALWAYS concatenated, but CURIE prefixes associate a prefix with a string that maps into a vocabulary. This is the essential difference between QNames and CURIEs, at least with regard to how they are used in RDFa. Christoph LANGE wrote: > On Thursday 22 January 2009 12:59:08 Shane McCarron wrote: >> It basically has to do with dereferencing the resulting URI when you use >> a QName or CURIE (e.g., xsi:lala should dereference to >> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance#lala - basically it has to do >> with how the resource at the end of the namespace URI is constructed, >> and how its components are accessed. If the resource masquerades as a >> folder, then http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance/lala will >> magically return the description for lala. If it masquerades as a >> document, then http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance#lala will >> return the complete resource and there will be a ID within that resource >> that corresponds to lala. > > Thanks, but doesn't this explanation just cover the "hash vs. slash" issue? > What I was actually wondering about was the case when a namespace URI neither > ends with hash nor slash. Suppose > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance", what would xsi:lala > expand to? Nothing reasonable, I suppose, so why do such namespace URIs > exist? > > Cheers, > > Christoph > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2009 22:53:00 UTC