[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: more QName madness
+cc: Patrick Stickler John Cowan wrote: > > Otiose, perhaps, but not odious. I do not understand the URIs Good, QNames > Bad point of view, since they are plainly isomorphic. Indeed, RDF defines > a two-way mapping between QNames and (some) URIs. Perhaps that mapping isn't anything you want to rely on architecturally to connect RDF and XML since it's not loseless. Going from URIs to QNames and back again isn't guaranteed to to give you the original URI (yet given RDF/XML's status as the sanctioned syntax for RDF, we are relying on it, so there you go). Whether this a problem with URIs, QNames, or RDF's use of them is both open to debate and finger-pointing. This was discussed on rdf-interest earlier this year. Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com
|
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
|