- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:19:54 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
[...] > But if two different schema encodings are used to reify the same > concepts, belonging to the same conceptual namespace, but which have > different URI fragment syntaxes, then the same RDF statements which > are valid according to one schema encoding are not valid according > to the other. What do you mean by different fragment syntaxes? Let's take XSD once again as the example:- http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema This is the namespace that you use in all applications which do not concatenate names onto the end of the URI, but merely recognize the names as somehow belonging to the namespace as a name. For example, all XSD processors use this namespace. http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# This is the namespace that you *could* use as an alias so as to form a QName that resolves to a URI that is explicitly set out in the XSD specification as being the intended URI reference for any of the XML Schema datatypes. As DanC pointed out to me, if you were using the following datatype in an RDF application:- http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int Any of the following would be O.K.:- @prefix a: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . @prefix b: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#i> . @prefix c: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#in> . a:int :name "int" . b:nt :name "int" . c:t :name "int" . An XSD processor wouldn't be expected to process this, because, obviously, it's RDF. Also, and RDF processor wouldn't be expected to process an XSD file using the namespace without the hash, so there is no conflict. The only conflict arises when there are no standard URI References set out in a specification. This is a problem with, for example, XHTML. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:19:35 UTC