Re: Revised namespaceState-48 finding (16 Dec 2005)

On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 16:08 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> was heard to say:
> | On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:07 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> |> Per my action from the 13 Dec 2005 TAG telcon, please find a revised
> |> finding on the issue of namespaceState-48 at
> |> 
> |>   http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/namespaceState-2005-12-16.html
> |
> | "The terms in a namespace are two-part identifiers consisting of a
> | namespace name (a URI) and a local name (an NCName as defined in [XML
> | Namespaces])."
> |
> | Is that derived from existing specs? It seems to be a new constraint;
> | one that I'm not comfortable with.
> 
> Uh. From Namespace in XML 1.1[1], Section 2.1
> 
>   [Definition: An XML namespace is identified by an IRI reference;...
> 
> So the namespace is the URI and
> 
>   [Definition: An expanded name is a pair consisting of a namespace
>   name and a local name. ] ... It is this
>   combination of the universally managed IRI namespace with the
>   vocabulary's local names that is effective in avoiding name clashes.
> 
> the terms are two-part identifiers consisting of a namespace name and
> a local name.

Yes, I see the definiton of expanded name; I don't see where
it says "The terms in [every] namespace are two-part identifiers".

>  (BTW, I believe the same is true in Namespaces in XML
> 1.0, I chose the 1.1 version only because I believe it is generally
> believed to contain clearer prose.)
> 
> | According to the 'Identify with URI' good practice,
> |   http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris
> | they should be just URIs, like in RDF; for example,
> | the terms in the RDFS namespace are
> |  http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label
> |  http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
> |  http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subPropertOf
> | etc.

What I'm saying is: those one-part, full URIs *are* the terms
in the RDF schema namespace; it is *not* the case, for RDF schema, that
"The terms in [the] namespace are two-part identifiers".


> | That's the easiest way to satisfy the QName Mapping requirement.
> |  http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#qname-mapping
> 
> Concatentation is the easiest way, but there's no universally accepted
> way.
> 
> | Namespaces that use tricky or unspecified mappings to URIs don't
> | lend themselves to cross-language use and shouldn't be encouraged,
> | let alone baked-in.
> 
> Nevertheless, they exist.

Yes, as do namespaces that consist of just URIs, such as RDF schema.


>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-names11-20040204/
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 23:08:39 UTC