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

RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:32:48 +1200
Message-ID: <B57613845A50D211864C0000F8FA5C2804207501@mars.otago.ac.nz>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote (in response to Patrick Stickler):
> If folks want to separate namespaces and names in some principled
> way, URI fragment identifiers provide for that; i.e.
> always end your XML namespace names in #.

This makes the assumption that it always makes sense to include
a '#' in the middle of a URI.  This is not the case.  Patrick
Stickler has shown this using his(?) urn:partax: scheme and I
have shown how it doesn't make sense if you use SGML formal
public identifiers (via the urn:publicid: scheme) for naming
schema namespaces and the concepts defined within them (that
message was posted to www-rdf-interest only, but I see now that
this thread is active on www-rdf-logic@w3.org as well).  Now Dan
may have no interest in using such URI schemes for namespaces,
but the point is that RDF should allow statements to be made
about resources with any style of URI.  Unfortunately, the
current XML syntax only supports the use of QNames with a
namespace having a '#'-friendly URI scheme.

> This method works for all URI schemes, no? http:, ftp:, mid:,
> not-invented-yet:, etc.

No - see above.

> If you're suggesting that you should be able to use
> any URI for an RDF property name and still get the
> sort of interoperability with XSLT that you're after,
> that's clearly impossible. You have said so at length.

I don't see why RDF should be restricted by what is easily done
using XSLT.  It sounds like a case of seeing everything as a
nail just because you have a hammer!

- Stephen

Received on Sunday, 19 August 2001 18:31:10 UTC

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