- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:58:16 +0100 (BST)
- To: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- cc: RDFCore <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001, dehora wrote: > then the seemingly compelling reasons are: > > 1: now that we have good feedback now on how people are using xml-rdf we > should recognise that it is being used as an extensibility mechanism and > take the high ground on the matter. > > 2: in using prefixes to disambiguate, everyone can play nice over > statement value interpretations. I think DAML and Tim Berners-Lee have > been smart here. > > 3: with a mandated prefix the RDF recommendations can make their games > foremost and provide a sane minimal base of interpretations. > > 4: prefixes give futureproofing. For example with an 'rdf:' prefix, > infoset would have been a snap to add this time around > (parseType="rdf:Infoset"). It makes architectural sense to allow a way > for future wgs to feed back known useful value interpretations into the > standard. Since namespaces don't leak into rdf:parseType attributes, do you want "foo:Literal" to be the same as "rdf:Literal" if "foo" is declared as "the same" namespace as "rdf"? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Bolstered by my success with vi, I proceeded to learn C with 'learn c'.
Received on Monday, 3 September 2001 11:00:26 UTC