W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: RDF Issue #rdfms-qname-uri-mapping

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:51:21 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 14:30 21/01/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:
>At 10:15 PM 21/01/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
> >You may be interested in this
> >
> >  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html
> >
> >which also suggests that refining the definitions of and relationships 
> between resources, URI's, URI refs and namespaces is a task for the TAG.
>Your draft is to the point but phrased in an awfully abstract
>way.  I think that it's easier for most people (for me certainly)
>to talk over abstract issues when there are concrete examples
>attached.  In this case, I think Jonathan's concern about the
>RDF address-generation-by-concatenation model highlights a
>few of these issues, and any policy which addresses these
>issues ought to imply a resolution to that dispute as well.  So
>if you wanted to send that to the TAG, I'd add a note highlighting
>this issue as a concrete example.

Good advice, will do.

>BTW, at the moment I share Jonathan's concern over the
>concatenation model of URI generation and don't think
>you ought to rush to close this issue.  Having said that,
>I'm a bit out of date with the recent debate.  But having
>said that, if Jonathan's right that RDF and Schema are
>out of sync on this, that's a REAL architectural red flag.

Does schema have URI's for all its types?

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 04:52:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:59 UTC