xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>

> 3) Let's discuss it rationally!

Sure.
 
> BTW, Paul: You cannot say that namespaces shouldn't be dereferenced: that
> would make RDF useless overnight. 

Is it really possible to make RDF useless with just changing 
the meaning of namespace URI ( currently that URI has 
no meaning at all ;-) ?

If yes - you should see how *huge* is the power of this URI. 
It can make RDF useless overnight. 

You said that -  not me. ;-)

It is not sane to allow toolmakers to use *such*  a power
in any way toolmaker will like and current W3C law allows 
such 'flexible' reading of the specs.

Namespaces shouldn't be dereferenced until theere is a clear 
understanding  *how* should they be dereferenced.

There is no such understanding now, and at the 
same time the spec allows anybody to dereference
namespaces in *any* way - and this dereferencing 
will be conformant == blessed by W3C.

> But on the othr hand, you cannot say that
> everything shoyuld be dereferenced: that would be absurd!

I don't understand. I'm not saying that URIs 
should be URLs. I'm saying that namespcae URIs 
should never be dereferenced.

Rgds.Paul.

PS.  So *you* think URI points to RDF ?  Why
do you think so ?

By the way - I think it will be something like Schema.
I suggest reading latest letters from Simon St.Laurent  
on "Begging the Question", but this is not the point.
 
I think those who really like RDF can bind their documents 
to RDF with some other mechanisms. Right?