- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:32:05 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Dan Connolly asserted:
>
> I just noticed the following:
>
> [[[
> <!ENTITY rdf 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'>
> <!ELEMENT section ANY>
> <!ATTLIST section rdf:instance CDATA "">
> ]]]
>
> --
> http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/examples/text.xml.rdf
> Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:17:04 GMT
>
> That's inconsistent with the intended use of the namespace name
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
>
> So... like...
>
> Hey, You Kids, Get Off My Lawn!
>
> -- http://www.goddamn.com/content/lawn.cfm
Since you include a URI, is this an RDF assertion?
And since you bring up the topic:
What specification constrains the contents of a namespace? It is logical
that the owner of a namespace (whatever that means) may restrict the ability
of others to add elements to the namespace but where is this precisely
specified?
The URI in question dereferences an RDF Schema. Are you saying that RDF
Schemas constrain namespaces? If yes, then how can we assert that the Schema
model is closed?
Isn't a major point of RDF that Properties are first class objects, and
that Properties can have multiple rdf:domains ... this whole long discussion
about models ... so what's the deal? If you are using an RDF Schema to
specify the RDF Namespace URI (a good thing IMHO BTW) then you are on shaky
ground with your complaint (that is to say if the URI pointed to a DTD you
would be on firm ground).
Do you have the same issue with TimBL's rdf:for
(http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Syntax)?
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Friday, 15 September 2000 17:42:31 UTC