- To: <srodriguez142857@y...>,<xml-dev@l...>
- Subject: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
- From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:42:22 -0700
- Thread-index: AcS8lvJMsJ35FXrBQQ6X470KiguAPgAGTVYA
- Thread-topic: Partyin' like it's 1999
Actually, RDF does *not* use namespaces like you are thinking. RDF
has the concept of using a prefix as “convenient shorthand” for a
URI, but it is done in a way that is incompatible with namespaces in XML. In
RDF, the fully-qualified term is evaluated by concatenating the URI and term,
where in xml namespaces the qname is never considered to be produced by
concatenation. This subtle difference can be incredibly confusing for people.
From: Sergio J.
Rodriguez M. [mailto:srodriguez142857@y...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004
7:34 PM
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: Partyin'
like it's 1999
If Namespaces are in fact a disaster, then why is widely used in any
XML Vocabulary, like RDF or OWL?
If these are a disaster, then the basis of the Semantic Web -OWL,
RDF-, and many other systems are in big trouble...
Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
wrote:
3.)
Namespaces are close to a disaster [but not quite, that dubious honor goes to
W3C XML Schema]
Do You Yahoo!?
http://net.yahoo.com.mx:
La mejor conexión a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por http://net.yahoo.com.mx/.
|
|
Cart
