W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Updated: issue qnameAsId-18

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:46:23 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020606132007.02808c38@15.144.25.13>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC