[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Begging the Question

• From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>
• To: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>, xml-dev@l...
• 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:-

     http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Description

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
there...

> 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://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

• References:
  • RE: Begging the Question
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Begging the Question (the novel)
• Next by Date: Re: Begging the Question (the novel)
• Previous by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Next by thread: RDF and Dereferencing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread