- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:13:16 +0300
- To: vdv@dyomedea.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="x:dataType"/> > <rant> > Although many vocabularies are doing so I am usually very > reluctant to > use qualified names in attributes or element values. The use of qnames as attribute values or in content data aside, the above resource is a URV namespace, hence a URI. Yes, I know it looks like a qname. Perhaps it should have been written as "x:dataType:". If you haven't already, please read my X-Values proposal (I don't want to repeat it here). http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0088.html This brings up the question, which I asked in another thread yesterday, about whether one can treat a URI scheme prefix or URN/URV namespace prefix as a URI. E.g. are "http:" or "urn:issn:" URI's? Can I use them to make statements about those schemes? If not, why not? (all RDF parsers I've used seem quite happy to treat them as URIs) And personally, I think the ability to use qnames in attributes is highly desireable and will have a great impact on future user acceptance of RDF XML serializations (which are *very* cumbersome to write manually -- or require the use of ENTITY tricks to achieve the same level of compression and convenience as qnames but introduce yet another representation for a URI). XML Schema got it right IMO by allowing qnames as values of URI typed attributes. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 3 356 0209 Senior Research Scientist Mobile: +358 50 483 9453 Nokia Research Center Fax: +358 7180 35409 Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 02:14:04 UTC