W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2001

RE: RFC2518 (WebDAV) / RFC2396 (URI) inconsistency

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:45:19 -0500 (EST)
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111210739160.30768-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> > > As a result, I recommend that the XML namespace
> > recommendation be modified
> > > to allow the use of just the URI scheme name as a namespace
> > identifier,
> The interpretation of a URI scheme prefix as a valid
> URI also makes sense from the viewpoint of RDF (at least
> to me ;-) in that otherwise, one has no way to make
> statements about the URI scheme itself.

Not so. It is possible to describe things without knowing their URI. We
do it all the time. Here, you can describe the scheme indirectly, eg:

<rdf:RDF blah blah...>
 <name>The DAV URI scheme</name>
 <seeAlso rdf:resource="http://www.webdav.org/"/>
 <blurb>A URI schema for ... </blurb>

We can further tighten things by saying that the RDF property sketched
here, 'prefix', is a UniqueProperty (using DAML+OIL or another Web
ontology language). That tells us that an individual Scheme is picked out
by each value of 'prefix'.

BTW http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html is generated using a similar
technique; details at http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html#ctech


(dropping out of this cross-posted thread and all its spinoffs...)

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 07:45:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:02 UTC