W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:28:38 -0700
Message-ID: <009c01c12728$f237c1c0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@upclink.com>

> DanC and others understand this issue well -- I've spoken to
> them about it. It's when you start claiming that different
> QNames must be disjunct and that URIs are really made up of two
> parts that you go off the deep end.

Thanks for going to the heart of the matter,  both politically and
technically ... but .... RDF is all about the graph .... right?

So if the identity of a node in a RDF graph is dependant on a namespace
separate from a local name; then the identity of the RDF node is in fact
made up of the ANDing of two separate signs.  If we cannot recover those two
signs by examining a RDF serialization of a graph, then the serialization
contains less information than the graph requires, and is broken.  On the
other hand if the identity or the RDF node is not dependant on those two
separate things, then why introduce the complexity of namespaces at all.

That the W3C does not seem to want to address this issue and fix it, is very
perplexing to some of us.

Seth Russell
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 10:35:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:31 UTC