Re: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 05:23  AM, 
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> B. The RDF QName to URI mapping function is broken and unreliable:

I don't believe this... you've got a tough case yo make here.

> I.e. if 'ns1:' = "urn:x:abc" and 'ns2:' = "urn:x:abcd"
>      then both 'ns1:defg' and 'ns2:efg' are mapped to
>      the same URI "urn:x:abcdefg"! Yet these are clearly
>      separate resources per their disjunct QName identities

Really? Says who? RDF defines a QName->URI mapping for RDF 
documents. RDF documents must follow this mapping. in an RDF 
document your examples ns1:defg and ns2:efg are the same. I 
don't see what the issue is. RDF uses QNames as nothing more 
than an abbreviation mechanism. There is no great QName 
conspiracy here. QNames mean nothing special in RDF. Look at 
N3 -- foo:bar can be replaced with <http://foo#bar> (or whatever 
the foo prefix is defined as) with no loss in meaning.

Outside an RDF document, if you're referring to QNames there, is 
none of RDF's problem. If folks don't define URIs for their 
formats, it's annoying, but I don't see how it is a flaw in RDF.

You say a lot of fluff, but it all assumes there is some great 
"QName to URI mapping problem". What is this problem?

> The bottom line is that *some* such solution has be adopted, and soon.

Why? What is the test case that we need to solve?

I see an awful lot of firemen, but no fire. It bothers me when 
there's all this shouting about a problem that doesn't exist!

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      | ...schoolyard subversion...
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://aaronsw.com/school/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 17:27:10 UTC