RE: INSEE releases OWL ontology and RDF data for geographical entities

Eric,

Does this response to my question imply that the other things I mentioned
are OK?

I have one last(?) question: In how far is there a relation between what we
talked about and an "endpoint"? When I have something like:
http://www.15926.org/2006/02/part2
does that mean that the "local name" 'part2' is an endpoint?

And would http://www.15926.org/2006/02/part2/ then *not* constitute one?

Regards,
Hans
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 17:00
To: Hans Teijgeler
Cc: 'Xiaoshu Wang'; 'Dan Connolly'; semantic-web@w3.org;
public-xg-geo@w3.org
Subject: RE: INSEE releases OWL ontology and RDF data for geographical
entities

Le dimanche 06 août 2006 à 16:32 +0200, Hans Teijgeler a écrit : 
> Eric,
> 
> You quoted:
> "It is recommended that implementors of RDF serializers, in order to 
> break a URI into a namespace name and a local name, split it after the 
> last XML non-NCName character, ensuring that the first character of 
> the name is a Letter or '_'. If the URI ends in a non-NCName character 
> then throw a "this graph cannot be serialized in RDF/XML" exception or
error."
> 
> Please help me understand: 
> 
> What is weird on those URIs?

You need to go back in the context set by Xiaoshu's mail to which I was
answering!

Xiaoshu wrote:

"The reason for me to raise this question is this.  Unlike hash URI, the
namespace URI can not be "inferred" or "guessed" from a URI itself.  For
instance, a URI of http://foo.com/bar can be constructed with namespace
http://foo.com/, http://foo.com/b or http://foo.com/ba coupled with local ID
of "bar", "ar" and "r", respectively."

He meant that a URI such as http://foo.com/bar can be obtained by a
namespace name http://foo.com/b and a local name "ar":

<ar xmlns="http://foo.com/b"/>

This would of course be a bad practise and he was mentioning that he thought
the W3C should clearly forbid that.

My remark is that if <ar xmlns="http://foo.com/b"/> would be interpreted as
http://foo.com/bar, it would be serialised back as <bar
xmlns="http://foo.com/"/> (thus my comment about the fact that with these
"weird URIs", XML/RDF -> RDF store -> XML/RDF roundtrips would be still more
broken that it is generally the case).

That's all what I meant, nothing more :) ...

Eric

--
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
Don't you think all these XML schema languages should work together?
                                                         http://dsdl.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 04-Aug-06
 
  

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.0.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 05-Aug-06

Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 08:28:38 UTC