- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:07:46 +0100
- To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
- CC: "BASS,MICK (HP-USA,ex1)" <mick_bass@hp.com>, karger@theory.lcs.mit.edu, www-rdf-dspace@w3.org, w3c-semweb-ad@w3.org
Ralph, Please see my follow up message to www-rdf-dspace attempting to clarify this. My original message was confused and confusing on this point I agree (written at the end of a long Friday!) and all of the errors in here are mine - not the working group's. Even though this was originally a private email exchange I should have been more careful. When the exchange got posted to the public list I re-read it more carefully, realized my error and posted clarification. > I'll have to complain to the RDF Core WG then. This > heuristic is unreliable and unnecessary. Agreed. I was completely incorrect in ascribing this to the WG group here and apologize. In jena, by default, you explicitly specify predicates using a qname pair - this avoids any ambiguity. However, there is a buried piece of the API would does allow you to take a URI and guess the namespace/localname split. You are, of course, correct that this is simply best avoided by using explicit specification of namespaces for example via isDefinedBy. > Let's encourage by example -- by writing code that uses > explicit references to namespaces with a property -- and > get the schemas to follow along. Agreed. > If jena believes that there is a URI that conforms to the URI RFC > but that is disallowed by RDF then we have a serious problem. No, jena does not believe that. > I'll have to pay closer attention to the RDF Core WG discussion > on this issue, I see. No, I just have be more careful about what I write an email late on a Friday! Apologies again. Dave
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 09:07:56 UTC