Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Julian Reschke) writes:
>> I have to agree with Simon. I am quite puzzled by John's claim
>> that QNames are isomporphic to URIs.
>The trivial proof is to define a function that maps any given QName
>(URI, local name pair) to a URI. That's not hard to do.
>(and no, the generated URIs will not be particulary pretty)
That proof is genuinely trivial, with no substantive bearing on the
arguments being made. That is possible does not mean that it is either
wise or an actual feature of QNames.
QNames have a different community of practice than URIs, and mere
formalisms do not and likely cannot reflect that.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:188.8.131.52.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether