- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:21:20 -0400
- To: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, fmanola@acm.org
Garret Wilson wrote: > > In RDF, to get a URI from a qname, one concatenates the URI designated > by the prefix with the local name. For example, rdf:Description yields > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Description. > > So what about XML Schema? The RDF Primer ( > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-primer-20030815/ ) uses the resource > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer which, working backwards, > yields xsd:integer iff the namespace to XML Schema is > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# . In fact, the RDF primer says that it > is: > > <blockquote> > Primer examples will also use several "well-known" QName prefixes > (without explicitly specifying them each time), defined as follows: > ... > prefix xsd:, namespace URI: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# > </blockquote> > > Unfortunately, the XML Schema specification itself ( > http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#namespaces ) says that the XML Schema > namespace is http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema (without the ending pound > sign). > > Isn't the XML Schema specification authoritative here? I'm guessing why > there's a discrepancy: we'd rather not look at a URI like > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchemastring or > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchemaint . But what justifies changing the > XML Schema namespace URI? Should we change the XLink namespace, too, so > we have http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink#href instead of > http://www.w3.org/1999/xlinkhref? Can RDF do that unilaterally? > > If I missed some new RDF rule that clears all this up, let me know. > > Thanks, > > Garret > Garret-- Yes, the XML Schema specification is authoritative here, and no, we haven't changed the XML Schema namespace URI. It's not a new RDF rule that clears all this up, it's the combination of old rules, plus the way the XML Schema Datatypes specification says to form URIrefs for datatypes. If you look just above the place in the XML Schema Datatypes specification you're quoting from (http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#namespaces) the spec says: "Each built-in datatype in this specification (both ·primitive· and ·derived·) can be uniquely addressed via a URI Reference constructed as follows: 1. the base URI is the URI of the XML Schema namespace 2. the fragment identifier is the name of the datatype For example, to address the int datatype, the URI is: * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int" So the XML Schema spec says that the URI for an xsd datatype has a pound sign in it; the RDF Primer isn't making that up. What the Primer is trying to do is show how to correctly form those datatype URIrefs in RDF. The section of the Primer you're quoting from is describing the use of QNames in abbreviating triples, and refers to the URIref that is associated with the QName prefix (xsd: in this case) as a "namespace URI", which is more-or-less what the XML Namespaces spec calls the same thing (actually, it calls it a "namespace URI reference", so I'm abbreviating a little). The namespace URI in the Primer is chosen (*based on* the namespace name in the XML Schema spec) so that, following the RDF rules for forming URIrefs for QNames, xsd:int (for example) forms the proper XML Schema datatype URIref. The Primer *doesn't say* that the URIref http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# assigned to xsd: in the Primer is *the same URI* that XML Schema specifies as its namespace name. But if you do things as described in the Primer you will be *using* the XML-Schema-Datatypes-specified namespace name http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema in such a way as to correctly form URIrefs for XML Schema datatypes, as defined in the XML Schema spec. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 20:56:39 UTC