- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:14:04 +0100
- To: caro@Adobe.COM
- Cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 03:33 PM 7/31/00 -0700, Perry A. Caro wrote: >Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that the requirement to find the > > > > namespace-related > > > > portion of a URI in isolation is not reasonable. > >Agreed. > > > > > It's also > > > > not clear to me > > > > what purpose it serves. > >One purpose would be reserialization of the model. Doesn't anyone else need >to do this? We do. Our processors are essentially filters: import RDF, >modify it, export RDF, pass it down the chain. > >Of course, our system doesn't concatanate the URI, so recovering the >namespace is not an issue. Oh yes, I agree that's an important goal. But does that goal need to be achieved on URIs in isolation? (Your own solution effectively maintains additional contextual information). #g ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2000 13:15:53 UTC