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

RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)

• To: 'Leigh Dodds' <ldodds@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:40:11 -0800

Er, I confess to not having read the RDDL spec all that carefully.

Nonetheless, if I want a URI merely to identify my namespace, I shouldn't
have to resolve to something first. It's only an identifier, existing unto
itself.

I have read the Namespaces rec, and this problem of overloading URIs
occurred to me back then, as I read it. So it's not an RDDL problem, its the
overloaded usage problem that's quite classic and always leads to trouble
eventually. 

Hence, the long RDDL and namespace threads. URI mean too many (conflicting)
things to too many people.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:22 PM
> To: Jeff Lowery; xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out 
> the Noise)
> 
> 
> > It seems that the basic problem is not what URIs point too, 
> but that they
> > are being overloaded (points to a web page, identifies a 
> namespace, points
> > to resource definition, etc, etc.)
> > 
> > Should URI's be extended to include intent?
> 
> Isn't this what xlink:role and xlink:arcrole are already 
> providing? Hence 
> RDDL 'nature' and 'purpose'.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> L.
> 

• Prev by Date: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Next by Date: Re: RDDL (was RE: Negotiate Out The Noise)
• Previous by thread: RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• Next by thread: RE: URI intents? (was: RDDL: Negotiate out the Noise)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread