[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- To: Joe English <jenglish@flightlab.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:54:29 -0700 (MST)
> Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the
> assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should *act*
> like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser
> at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one
> might point a Web Browser at. This assumption, while not unreasonable,
> is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec.
Really? Where?
> The only way to make sense
> of most W3C specs -- RDF especially, but REC-xml-names is no exception
> -- is to take "resource" and "URI" as atomic ontological entities
> with "resource === URI" as an axiom.
I disagree. You give the RDF spec as an example. CR-rdf-schema has some
examples where the distinction between resource (XML element) and URI
(reference fragment) is quite clear. Search for "MaritalStatus". There
are cases where your interpretation is hard to give a miss: the recent
discussion of how to nail a person down for RDF is a good example. But I
don't recall any W3C recs that impose this on the general case.
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
