- From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:50:27 +0300
- To: Jan Wielemaker <wielemak@science.uva.nl>
- CC: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus@few.vu.nl>
Hi Jan, > I'm in favour of one namespace. It is after all one `document' and as > all resources are controlled by one entity (you :-) you can avoid Yes, it would be easier to manage :-) > Whats a CBD? Its not mentioned in [2]. Finally you gave the motivation It is explained and referenced in [1]. Basically it's the set of triples that has one particular resource as its subject. It has been proposed as a suitable 'default response' to the question 'tell me about this resource'. We would like to return a CBD on an HTTP GET for a WN URI. > for the / :-) Anyway, using / is still wrong. Not sure how, but this I'm not sure what you think the motivation was... Actually thinking back I think the motivation was twofold 1) esthetics 2) easy way to define URIs that refer to larger chunks, e.g. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/wordsense/bank could refer to all the wordsenses containing 'bank'. I moved this idea to the 'Issues' section of [1]. > problem must be solved otherwise. Of course, unless you propose to revise > XML/RDF and preferably also XML namespace handling :-) I think especially that only allowing QNames for attributes in RDF/XML is pretty strange. You can't even replace <rdf:type ...> for its expanded URI. Probably other notations do not have this quirk? Thanks again for all your offline explanations, you finally got through to me :-) Mark. [1]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion [2]http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/ [3]http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/WNET/wn-conversion-20060202 [4]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0087
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2006 11:51:25 UTC