[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Sergio J. Rodriguez M. wrote:
>
>> If Namespaces are in fact a disaster, then why is widely used in any
>> XML Vocabulary, like RDF or OWL?
>
>
> Because we didn't know better six years ago. Some things you only learn
> from brutal experience.
Hang on - when I dug around a few years back it seemed there were
enough voices indicating that XML namespaces as presented were
problematic. Rather, sometimes people need to experience brutual
experience firsthand to learn from brutal experience.
>> If these are a disaster, then the basis of the Semantic Web -OWL,
>> RDF-, and many other systems are in big trouble...
>
>
> They are in big trouble.
Overstated. They're in no more big trouble than systems using QNames
in content are in big trouble. There are ways and idioms to
serialize RDF into XML for maximum sanity.
> Some of the biggest s**t in namespaces
> (relative namespace URIs in particular) hit the fan in the intersection
> between RDF and XML.
Well, RDF was an XML namespaces use case.
> Both sides retreated covered in feces and unhappy,
> and the problem has never really been fixed. The W3C TAG is now trying
> to muck out this sewer again, with only marginally more success.
I don't see that issue (roundtripping QNames and URIs) being
resolved before there is clarity around fragment identifiers.
cheers
Bill
|
