Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

While all of these points are valid, important, and eventually
need to be worked out (mostly, I think, on the RDF side, though
the XML NS spec also needs a little work too), there is currently
a convergence proposal under very serious discussion which will,
for the time being, move the qname and namespace issue outside
of the datatyping solution, as only complete URIs would be used,
and the URIs used would be those that XML Schema (or other
datatype owners) say must be used.

I believe this addresses the primary concerns that have been
expressed regarding the relationship between RDF datatyping
and XML Schema datatypes.

if you haven't already.

Your comments are very welcome.



On 2002-02-05 22:39, "ext Jonathan Borden" <> wrote:

> From: "John F Schlesinger" <>
> To: "John F. Schlesinger" <>
> Cc: <>; <>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:54 PM
> Subject: RE: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents
>> My point is that http:.// and
>> are different namespaces.
>> As you yourself said in your earlier contribution:
>> "As you should know, and must realize, XML namespace names are compared by
>> _literal string_ comparison, and not using any sort of URI
> canonicalization
>> scheme."
>> If you stand by that, then these are _not_ the same namespaces.
> Certainly!
> While machines have no problem disambiguating URIs which differ by a single
> character, people do. Binding the "xsd" prefix to a different URI than what
> people expect causes problems _particularly_ when the URIs are close.
> While this may be legal from an XML Namespaces perspective, it is poor form.
> It goes against the principle of least surprise. I don't want to have to
> think about all the reasons doing this may or may not cause a problem in any
> situation one might consider, I just don't want to think about easy stuff
> that can be avoided.
> Doing this is sort of like me taking your email nickname, sure people can
> look in the headers, but you can easily fool alot of people that won't
> bother reading all the details. I did that in the past email just to make a
> point, but if we all started impersonating eachother, sure we would be
> following the SMTP protocol, but it is still bad form.
> Jonathan

Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email:

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 01:59:37 UTC