Re: Objection to Debate Scheduling

/ Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> was heard to say:
|  * there are URIs that cannot be abbreviated by
|    using QNames;

If concat(namespace-uri(.),local-name(.)) is your only abbreviation
function.

|  * QNames is a syntax for expressing XML elements
|    and attributes, and not for expressing URIs. It
|    is therefore inappropriate and confusing to use
|    the 'object type' in other specifications as a
|    way to scope things (e.g., XPath functions) or
|    abbreviate URIs (e.g., RDF-related standards).
|
| This second point is particularly important and in my view is the discussion
| that the W3C in some form or another should be having; there are a many
| situations that have absolutely nothing to do with XML that have adopted
| QNames, and each time it is done it further muddies the waters.

Conversely, QNames are a well-understood mechanism for writing short
strings that identify names in a namespace.

| The proposal itself:
|
|   <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-10-21-curie>

I remain concerned about the ability to distinguish a CURIE from a
URI, both in practice as a technical issue and in the minds of users.

This proposal addresses the technical issue by suggesting [square
brackets] to disambiguate a CURIE from a URI in a context where a URI
can occur. I suppose technically, that might be sufficient.

However, this doesn't do anything to address the issue of confusion as
CURIEs look like QNames but aren't. We seem to be inviting users to
get confused and attempt to use CURIEs in contexts where only QNames
are allowed, such as XPath expressions, W3C XML Schema QName-valued
attributes, etc.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
XML Standards Architect
Sun Microsystems, Inc.