RE: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

Dave Beckett wrote:
> However there are downsides to this of making the RDF URIs different
> from what people might expect or have been declared as Johnathan
> Borden pointed out in
> where the XML Schema concept of unsignedInt would have a URI
> assigned by the XML Schema spec of
> and
> using the simple concatenation.  This is a problem.
> There probably should be some recommendation on how RDF approaches
> this; adding/removing extra chars to XML namespaces to make them more
> friendly - the appending of '#', '/' or maybe '?'.  I think N3
> considers this.  Maybe a note on which RDF namespaces to use, where
> not already defined would be useful e.g. use
> for XML Schemas.

Of course the problem with using this URI for XML Schema is that the URI XML
Schema specifies is: .

If RDF has a different notion of namespaces than the rest of XML, RDF will
continue to suffer from being disconnected from the larger XML activity, and
XML will continue to suffer from not being able to properly make use of RDF.


Received on Sunday, 11 February 2001 22:58:37 UTC