RE: QName Problem Isn't One

What you describe sounds like it will allow reference to concepts from XML
Scema in practice, which is good enough in my book.

Though I do reckon it depends on what you want to do with the bits of XML
Schema in RDF. I don't think you can take bits of one language and paste
them in another and expect it to automatically make sense.

Lesser comments :

<- The main point -- that the same URI is used for the same concept -- is
<- resolved. The secondary point -- that a different namespace is
<- used in each
<- document -- is done correctly, since to use the same namespace would
<- needlessly confuse processors.

this sounds rather contradictory to me, as though you're saying that

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

are both the same and different. Ok, some systems might interpret them the
same way and others differently, but that's not quite the same thing.

 Since the XML Namespaces spec assigns no
<- semantics to namespaces, there is no misuse or abuse of the XML Schema
<- namespace. In the end, everything works beautifully.

But aren't there semantics attached to the concept you're taking from XML
Schema (defined in the context of an XML Schema) - what defines them in an
RDF document?

<- For some reason, others insist that there is a serious problem here.
<- However, they have not been able to explain to my satisfaction
<- what it is. I
<- believe that it is based on some sort of misconception about namespaces.

I do have some doubts about the relationship between http://this and
http://this#

<- If any of the above is confusing, please let me know and I'll try to
<- elaborate.

Please do.

Received on Saturday, 5 May 2001 09:59:28 UTC