Lists Home |
Date Index |
+cc: Patrick Stickler
John Cowan wrote:
> Otiose, perhaps, but not odious. I do not understand the URIs Good, QNames
> Bad point of view, since they are plainly isomorphic. Indeed, RDF defines
> a two-way mapping between QNames and (some) URIs.
Perhaps that mapping isn't anything you want to rely on
architecturally to connect RDF and XML since it's not loseless.
Going from URIs to QNames and back again isn't guaranteed to to give
you the original URI (yet given RDF/XML's status as the sanctioned
syntax for RDF, we are relying on it, so there you go). Whether this
a problem with URIs, QNames, or RDF's use of them is both open to
debate and finger-pointing.
This was discussed on rdf-interest earlier this year.
Bill de hÓra