- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: 26 Feb 2001 11:37:50 +0100
- To: Sergey Melnik<melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: RDF Interest Group<www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On 21 Feb 2001 14:38:12 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote: > Many users of the RDF API were upset about the inability to extract > namespaces from resources. Human designers like organizing the > vocabularies they create, and namespaces provide an easy (if not free) > mechanism of doing that. To exploit this mechanism, the editing tools > need to support it. URIs are all about namespaces ! http://www.w3.org/RDF/ urn:ietf:rfc:1630 Those example seem quite structured to me... And by the way, they *are* the recommended vocabulary of RDF. I do not see the point of introducing another kind of namespaces... > Other than that, namespaces could provide a > straightforward way of dealing with primitive types, as I mentioned > above. URIs do to, IMHO (data:) > Thinking about the literals, it seems to me that there might have been > two key issues that prevented them from being used as subjects in the > M&S spec: > > - The M&S syntax would have become even clumsier that it is now This is a purely syntactical issue; from the model point of view, it would have been much useful, and *less* clumsy than making literals an exception (what about modelling xml:lang, for example) > - From the modeling perspective, you can create a lot of confusion by > making statements about literals "John" or "Boston". I think having > explicit namespaces for literals like "urn:string:John" would prevent > people from making weird statements like > "urn:string:John"--livesIn-->"urn:string:Boston" (a string lives in > another string?) I think it is not more confusing than a common RDF example : http://comany.com/~smith --livesIn--> "Boston" a homepage living in a string ?? Pierre-Antoine Champin
Received on Monday, 26 February 2001 05:38:02 UTC