- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:23 +0100
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org
At 16:04 05/06/2002 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: >/ Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> was heard to say: >| At 10:32 05/06/2002 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >[...] >|> there is also the extensibility of URI schemes that >|>must be considered. >| >| Are you referring to the problem that faced with: >| >| <rdf:Description rdf:type="rdfs:Class"> >| >| how does one tell if the "rdfs:Class" is a URI or a qname? > >I think that's what Roy meant. It's certainly a problem. I think >that's a really bad idea. I agree. I guess I had a bit of power loss in the old cpu when writing my first message. [...] >| 1) Can you confirm that the RDF practise of using qnames to represent >| URI REF's is consistent with this finding. If so, you might like to >| mention this in section 2. > >In what context? RDF uses qnames only as element or attribute names at present. However, these are a short hand representation of URI REF's so fall within the scope of the last para of section 2 and, due to brown out, I wasn't sure I understood what it was saying. Rereading today, I read it as blessing the RDF practice of deriving a URI REF (unique id) from a uri/localname pair, though not necessarily blessing the algorithm used. (aside: should that be uri-ref/localname pair?) Brian
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:46:51 UTC