• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: XML Schema and ontologies
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:03:59 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F7A1DBC.1010009@p...>

bill.dehora@p... (Bill de hÓra) writes:
>Models et al aside, it doesn't help that QNames have no sanctioned 
>syntax. What would be mapping against?

The lack of a general conversion from QNames to URIs seems to be a giant
speed bump with square edges and shards of glass on top.  

Oh wait, that's not a speed bump - that's a wall!

Reconciling trees and graphs is really difficult, but the QName<->URI
quagmire complicates things enormously, without nearly as much
architectural justification.

• Prev by Date: Re: Beyond Ontologies
• Next by Date: Re: Re: the yin/yang web, was: Re: xml schema and OWL
• Previous by thread: RE: Looking for Schema for Requirements and Specifications Manual(s)
• Next by thread: xml-dev by RSS
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread