- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:12:11 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:46 PM, Jonathan Borden wrote: > [...] >> Moreover, DanC was heard to say that he can't endorse RDDL because >> http://www.rddl.org/nature returns 404 --- WTF??? >> >> http://www.rddl.org/natures gives you back a document describing >> RDDL natures. >> >> http://www.rddl.org/#nature gives you one of the locations in the >> RDDL spec where rddl:nature is described. >> >> What made anyone thing that http://www.rddl.org/nature was >> supposed to resolve????????? >> >> Am I seriously missing something? > > Maybe I am. > > We were sketching RDF stuff and I asked what rddl: in rddl:nature > expanded to, and I was told http://www.rddl.org/ , so I asked > what the web says about http://www.rddl.org/nature , and we got a 404. > > If rddl: is supposed to expand to http://www.rddl.org/# , then > that's different. If you assume the RDF method, then as you know you will have the same problem with a host of other non-RDF specifications such as XML Schema, e.g. which URI corresponds to xsd:int ? Of course this is a well known issue discussed by the TAG http:// www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 (in fact I raised it in 2002). As you know, you ought not make the assumptions you have made about QName->URI. In the case of RDDL, you GET the document at http:// www.rddl.org/ and it tells you what the URI corresponding to "Nature" is (click on the link in the TOC). In fact the current version of RDDL does not define the qname rddl:nature ... although it is defined in http://www.rddl.org/ 20050704/ which is intended to be the new version of RDDL assuming folks don;t have issues. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 02:11:59 UTC