- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:44:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: <aswartz@upclink.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <sean@mysterylights.com>
(removing www-rdf-logic from cc: list) On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > in an RDF > > document your examples ns1:defg and ns2:efg are the same. I > > don't see what the issue is. RDF uses QNames as nothing more > > than an abbreviation mechanism. > > But then one might argue that RDF mis-uses QNames, since the XML > NS spec does not define such a usage. You might argue that way, but you'd be arguing against the design of layered specifications that drives much of W3C's work. By analogy: The XML 1.0 spec doesn't define a usage of XML for cookie recipies, nor for reinventing RPC over HTTP. Yet is has been used for both. Those specs take what XML 1.0 (or XML 1.0 plus namespaces) offers, and add additional usage patterns so that folk can get some particular job done. RDF does the same. Dan
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 10:44:48 UTC