- From: Paul W. Abrahams <abrahams@valinet.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:50:09 -0400
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- CC: abrahams@acm.org, michaelm@netsol.com, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
John Cowan wrote: > "Paul W. Abrahams" wrote: > > > For the sake of argument only, let's combine that with the proposal that all forms > > of URIs other than data: should be deprecated. We're then in almost exactly the > > same place we'd be in if we just say that URIs in xmlns attributes are uninterpreted > > and just taken literally. In other words, taking namespace names literally and > > moving the burden of interpretation onto another attribute (or several) achieves > > what I think folks are trying to achieve with "data:,". > > For comparison, yes. But using "data:" preserves the resource-nature > (as in Buddha-nature) of namespaces, making RDF statements about them > possible. I assume the namespace has an existence independent of the name we give it, even if that name is fixed forever. The name is what we use to refer to it just as you, John Cowan, have an existence independent of the name "John Cowan" (which probably isn't unique, but that's another story). I'll admit to not being as up on RDF as I should be. But modulo my possible misunderstanding, couldn't RDF just refer to the namespace by its name, with the assumption that when we use the name we're referring to the namespace that lies behind it? The name in that context, even within RDF, would be viewed as it is within the namespace spec itself: as an uninterpreted string that merely serves to label something unambiguously. Paul Abrahams
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 13:50:28 UTC