OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: Begging the Question

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
  • To: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 19:56:05 +0000

> Is it really possible to make RDF useless with just changing
> the meaning of namespace URI

Certain parts of the RDF Model and Syntax rely on using properties as
attached to the end of namespaces. That is to say:

    <Description xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>

Refers to this RDF property:-


Of course, RDF parsers already understand that, but I could write a Schema
that is more explicit than that, and it would have to look it up.

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

Nah, because it wouldn't change. No-one is going to forbid anyone from
dereferencing a namespace (just as it is unwise to make it mandatory).

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

In a system x1, dereference the namespace accoroding to the specification
x2. In an RDF system, dereference the ns and parse it as an RDF Schema. How
is that not clear?

> 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.

True (or more accurately: I agree). If I understand what you are saying

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

It's fine saying that, but I can't debate it if there isn't a reason behind
that proposition :-) IOW: Why should no-one ever dereference ns'?

> PS.  So *you* think URI points to RDF ?

Only in an RDF system. Well, even then it doesn't have to... there are some
"freak" cases that I have seen, like using mailboxes to define people.

> I think those who really like RDF can bind their documents
> to RDF with some other mechanisms. Right?

Maybe, but what hassle!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS