RE: [xml-dev] Partyin' like it's 1999

["Sergio J. Rodriguez M." <srodriguez142857@yahoo.com>]

Hi, Joshua.

 

  Thanks for your clarification.  But then, how an XML Namespaces-aware parser should process (considered) the QName, if is not produced by concatenation of the URI and the local part?

 

  According to the XML Namespace spec, in the section 3 (Qualified Names): "Note that the prefix functions only as a placeholder for a namespace name. Applications should use the namespace name, not the prefix, in constructing names whose scope extends beyond the containing document."

 

  I understand that the namespace name is the URI, right? ... so, I guess that the parser must identify a QName as:  URI + "local_part", i. e., by concatenation.

 

Regards,

 

Sergio Rodríguez.

Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com> wrote:

Actually, RDF does *not* use namespaces like you are thinking.  RDF has the concept of using a prefix as “convenient shorthand” for a URI, but it is done in a way that is incompatible with namespaces in XML.  In RDF, the fully-qualified term is evaluated by concatenating the URI and term, where in xml namespaces the qname is never considered to be produced by concatenation.  This subtle difference can be incredibly confusing for people.

 

---

From: Sergio J. Rodriguez M. [mailto:srodriguez142857@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:34 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Partyin' like it's 1999

 

If Namespaces are in fact a disaster, then why is widely used in any XML Vocabulary, like RDF or OWL?

 

If these are a disaster, then the basis of the Semantic Web -OWL, RDF-, and many other systems are in big trouble...

 

All the best,

 

-Sergio Rodríguez

Saludos cordiales,

Sergio J. Rodríguez M.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Net: La mejor conexión a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por 
$100 al mes.