RE: Example problem with QNames and RDF was: Re: QName Problem Isn't One

Danny Ayers wrote:

> The only drawback of the examples is that they describe how a
> stylesheet may
> be applied to XML and don't really deal with the RDF model. You do start
> down this path with the entertaining "close enough for government work"
> angle.

I've never claimed that there is a problem with the basic RDF model which
does not entertain the concept of a qname, rather the problem exists in the
_algorithm_ by which a parser is directed to generate a URI reference from a
qname. Furthermore this problem only exists when a namespace URI ends in an
alphanumeric character, so I suggest that changing the behavior _in this
circumstance_ would not break existing RDF applications which can't
effectively deal with such namespaces. My solution is to change a small nit
in the RDF syntax, rather than change every namespace which ends in an

> What I'd like to see is examples of RDF & RDF schema with reference to the
> following : 1. how a parser would deal with the use of the XML Schema
> namespace in RDF (particularly a schema-validating one); 2. how an
> application might interpret the result of such a parse to take
> advantage of
> the types found in XML Schema.

<xsd:decimal xmlns:xsd="" rdf:value="10.5"

again, by directing the parser to insert a '#' between the XML Schema
namespace and the local name _only when the namespace URI ends in an
alphanumeric character_,  the correct XML Schema datatype URI is generated
from the correct XML Schema datatype qname.

Now I would like a counter example demonstrating where making this change
breaks something that currently works.


Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2001 08:36:33 UTC