- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:58:10 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
At 20:35 22/05/2002 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: [...] >As far as I understand the issue, *any* algorithm that attempts to map > >(uriref, name) -> (uri) > >will be unreasonable if it attempts to produce a URI in the same URI schema >as the namespace name. This is because for an arbitrary URI scheme, there >will be no obvious way to produce new valid URIs without having a priori >knowledge about this URI scheme's syntax (and semantics). > >For instance, consider the qname ("tel:++492512807760", "foo"). If you want >to things even more interesting, try ("tel:++492512807760#bar", "foo"). I see what you mean; you envisage a requirement that all qnames must have a well formed URI. RDF does not have that requirement. It would take the view that if you use a qname in a situation which requires it to be transformed to a URI, then its a bad idea to use qnames that don't transform to a sensible URI. If the TAG proceeds with this, it would be important to get the scope and requirements clear. Brian
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 05:58:54 UTC