- From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 23:58:43 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[snip] The basic problem is that the RDF Model doesn't like to grubby itself with worldly things like constraints on allowable URI syntaxes for the resources named within RDF. RDF syntax(es) can constrain their particular concrete encodings of RDF all they like, but all the time we go around saying "the abstract model's the thing" we have to stick with the possibility that model-only applications may be creating apps that don't live by the constraints of some particular RDF syntactic encoding. If we said that, regardless of syntax, RDF predicates should be named with URIs whereby a regular-expression split can separate it into namespace-name and name-within-the-namespace parts, that'd be one way. I'm not sure how we decide whether to make that leap. Right now we don't; which means urn:uuid:3242340623324314890324 and suchlike are fine names for RDF predicates (albeit non-representable in RDF 1.0 XML syntax). It would take a errata or amendment at the RDF model layer for us to make these kinds of assumptions. While it feels icky making rules about URI string formats at the RDF model layer, perhaps a case might be made that the practical benefits outweight considerations of elegance...? Dan
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2001 19:00:22 UTC