Re: RDDL natures: for the record

On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 21:12 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>   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,

I didn't assume the RDF method; RDF was the explicit topic
of conversation, as I said:

> > We were sketching RDF stuff

It's tricky to pick up in email based on sketchy records of ftf
discussion.

Odd... I'm not even sure how the ftf discussion got to that point;
the (draft) finding http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ uses
assoc:nature where assoc: stands for http://www.w3.org/2005/12/assoc# .



>  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 ?

That particular case is a solved problem:

[[
      *  Each built-in datatype in this specification (both ·primitive·
        and ·derived·) can be uniquely addressed via a URI Reference
        constructed as follows:

     1. the base URI is the URI of the XML Schema namespace
     2. the fragment identifier is the name of the datatype

For example, to address the int datatype, the URI is:

      * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int
]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/


> 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
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 03:59:18 UTC