- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 14:32:16 +0100
- To: "'James Tauber'" <JTauber@bowstreet.com>, "'Bill dehOra'" <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> I had a quick look and one thing immediately stood out. In > 2.2.3 there is a > section entitled "Schemas and Namespaces". It seems to be on > first thought > that the *model* by itself has nothing to do with XML > Namespaces. The model > should just talk about everything being a URI and the whole > tie-in with XML > Namespaces only comes into play once you serialized. > > In particular, the statement "In order to avoid confusion between > independent -- and possibly conflicting -- definitions of the > same term, RDF > uses the XML namespace facility" actually seems wrong. RDF > doesn't use XML > namespaces to avoid conflict. It uses URIs and those URIs > just happen to > manifest as namespace URIs in the XML serialization. > > > > >So a useful thing to start with might be a version of the rdf > > >m&s spec that > > >is just the m, without any changes to the model. Once we > > have that as a > > >straw man, we can discuss the issues relating purely to the > > >model and keep > > >them orthogonal to the syntax. > > > > > >James Thats a good point. Is it also related to clarifying the relationship between the model, namespaces and schemas? The current specs say that each property is associated with a unique schema and each schema relates to a namespace. At least I think thats what it is trying to say. Brian
Received on Friday, 8 September 2000 09:32:23 UTC