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

Re: name that URI was: Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:31:09 -0500 (EST)
To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201290827480.30062-100000@tux.w3.org>
So maybe what we need is to ask the XML Schema group to explicitly identify
some URIs for us, and explain how those are related to their Qnames.

(I had a problem in using a predecessor to EARL -
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/earl/ - that I needed URIs for certain ideas
expresed by other specs. In that case, I happened to be an editor of another
spec, so made sure it explicitly assigned a URI. We can talk to other groups
and ask for theese things. And it is a good idea, if we don't have a neat
architectural solution. At worst, they say no, and we go back to finding a
hack. But at best they say yes, and we all find life easier and more



On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Jonathan Borden wrote:

  As I said, either use the _predefined_ URIs, and those alone, or else devise
  your own URIs. As it stands, the XML Schema mechanism and the RDF mechanism
  for assigning QNames and URIs to pieces of XML are _both_ ad hoc and
  incompatible. Certainly the XML Schema is more complicated.

  You argue to proceed. But proceeding without an architectural solution is
  what created this mess in the first place. Sometimes  babies need clean
  bathwater, else an epidemic of cholera.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 08:31:24 UTC

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