RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

Reposting this, as the last post got me kicked off the list
due to too many bounced mails (???)

(or was that just someone telling me to shut up already ;-)

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com 
> Sent: 16 August, 2001 21:54
> To: danbri@w3.org
> Cc: aswartz@upclink.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; 
> sean@mysterylights.com
> Subject: RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for not being clearer... I was of course not arguing
> against the design of layered specifications. That's a no brainer.
> 
> What I had meant to say was that the present method employed
> by RDF to map QNames to URIs results in the potential loss of 
> a distinction (be it syntactic or semantic) between QNames having
> different namespaces -- a distinction which is IMO defined clearly
> in the XML NS spec. 
> 
> The present treatment of QNames by RDF, therefore, does not simply 
> extend or add to the functional layer defined by XML Namespaces,
> but rather weakens or violates that layer by failing to maintain such 
> QName distinctions. 
> 
> As such, RDF (mis-)uses QNames in a way that is not compatible with
> the XML Namespace spec.
> 
> Was that worded better?
> 
> Patrick
> 
> --
> Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
> Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
> Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
> Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> > Sent: 16 August, 2001 17:45
> > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> > Cc: aswartz@upclink.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; 
> > sean@mysterylights.com
> > Subject: RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (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 15:00:54 UTC