- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 08:31:39 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 06:13 PM 7/7/00 +0200, Eric van der Vlist wrote: >If I bring it here, it's because I wonder if the answer shouldn't be >coherent with the one which is given to the namespaces URIs and that >this forum has already worked a lot on a similar subject. > >IMHO, it would be preferable to keep them consistent (the concepts would >be easier to explain to XML users and to implement in XML tools). I agree that keeping them consistent would be easiest, but I'm not sure the solution to the namespaces problem that's moving ahead actually provides an answer that's appropriate to XLink. Once again, we're using URIs to identify semantics. In the XLink case, however, it seems like processors likely should have access to absolutization algorithms, though that process isn't specified. It seems like this recent move is an attempt to align XLink with RDF, where absolutization appears to be the common understanding. (Retrieval of some unidentified document may be an excuse to push that interpretation.) On the other hand, it seems worthwhile to consider relative URIs as something other than 'shortcuts' - as representing claims that the description provided is purely local, without global context. Since they're being used for semantics, I think that approach may well make sense. This "URI reference identifies some resource that describes the intended property" seems like yet another leap off the cliff, providing underspecified functionality that leaves us all pointing to various random junk that may or may not be useful for processing. While it may be a useful bridge to RDF, I'd tend to suggest that people avoid using role and arcrole entirely until these issues (including what lives at that URI) are resolved, and stick to the weaker label, which carries no such luggage. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Saturday, 8 July 2000 08:29:04 UTC