[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Begging the Question
> Most of the unfulfilling argument surrounding it springs from the > assumption that, since namespace names *look* like URLs, they should *act* > like URLs -- that is, that one should be able to to point a Web Browser > at them and retrieve something useful since they look like something one > might point a Web Browser at. This assumption, while not unreasonable, > is explicitly disclaimed by the namespaces spec. Really? Where? > The only way to make sense > of most W3C specs -- RDF especially, but REC-xml-names is no exception > -- is to take "resource" and "URI" as atomic ontological entities > with "resource === URI" as an axiom. I disagree. You give the RDF spec as an example. CR-rdf-schema has some examples where the distinction between resource (XML element) and URI (reference fragment) is quite clear. Search for "MaritalStatus". There are cases where your interpretation is hard to give a miss: the recent discussion of how to nail a person down for RDF is a good example. But I don't recall any W3C recs that impose this on the general case. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|