- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:34:46 +0200
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> From: Patrick Stickler [mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> On 2002-02-20 19:24, "ext Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr> wrote:
> >>> Ok, from scratch. How about this:
> >>>
> >>> :mySweater xx:label xsd.string:22
> >
> >> This is a TDL URV, a typed data literal uniform resource value.
> >
> >> C.f. http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pstickler-tdl-00.txt
> >
> > Indeed. Wow I had no clue. Actually, I expected some
> serious flames for my
> > post :-)
>
> Everyone's flamethrowers have already run out of fuel on me... ;-)
>
> The URV concept is considered somewhat radical...
Looking at use cases for the "Identifier syntax" would allow me to catch
up. I have been looking for such (free interpretation please) 'URI
scheme' ideas but with little luck.
I liked the "additional benefit" your Internet-Draft. Some time ago, I
posted to some lists about the inability of one to bind URIs to prefixes
as
<ns1:rootElem xmlns:ns1="http://www.myOrg.org/ns/2002/"
xmlns:ns1.1 = "ns1:foo1.xsd#"
xmlns:ns1.1.1 = "ns1.1:typeID">
Do you think that using a construct of qnameAsPrefix+'.'+URI_patch is a
good idea? This defers from your draft as it does not try to introduce a
new 'scheme indicator' although can also be done. But the juice of this
is that I tried to produce a valid syntax to "layer" namespace
declarations (that in turn could be used for ontologies stuff). I am
aware of no valid syntactical means that help in URI layer architecture.
Considering recent conversations around things like URI != vocabulary, I
find it weird that I saw none expressing the view that at least a *set*
of URIs can represent and encapsulate (as retrievable URLs) anything,
including a vocabulary hierarchy in any form of Schemata.
Kindest regards,
Manos
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 05:31:34 UTC