• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:55:58 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3D00E54A.D6734B57@p...>

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] 
>
>
> [re namespace 2 URI conflation]
>
> Isn't that just a bug in RDF? Is there no hope of fixing it?
 
It's not a bug in RDF, but is a real pain. One way to fix it is not
to use qNames and namespaces in the serialization and to stick with
URI refs. 

Patrick Stickler has been through this subject fairly exhaustively
in the last week or so here and on rdf-ig. I suspect if he's even
half-right, there's a potential issue for the TAG. 

Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPQDzrOaWiFwg2CH4EQJuJgCeNFJrr+dQfDSRvUdn0S73L9NcIGEAoLXq
h8iPMcrVst4bxrlAqusZz9xr
=kGNS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

• References:
  • Re: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Next by Date: Re: xsi:type and broken contracts
• Previous by thread: Re: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Next by thread: Re: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread