• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: more QName madness
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:47:04 +0000
• Cc: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>, XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <200211141440.JAA06214@m...>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

+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

• References:
  • Re: more QName madness
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Next by Date: Re: more QName madness
• Previous by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Next by thread: Re: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread