On 2002-06-03 17:54, "ext Roland Schwaenzl"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you argue such use of namespace URI's is not legitimate?
>>>>
>>>> Well, the debate over namespace documents, and whether a namespace
>>>> URI should resolve to some resource is currently unresolved and
>>>> under the scrutiny of the TAG,
>>>
>>>
>>> The dcmi-namespace-policy recommendation i take as INPUT
>>> not as discussion point.
>>>
>>> Do you suggest dcmi should change that recommendation?
>>
>> That's a loaded question ;-)
>>
>> My short, honest answer is that I feel the recommendation is
>> poorly justified and in conflict with what the specifications
>> license regarding the functional role of a namespace URI.
>>
>
>
> Dear Patrick,
>
> may i point you to
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/ Appendix C, C2 Namespace URIs
I'm quite aware of that error in the original specification.
It makes the mistake of assuming that a given term is confined to
only one functional vocabulary which is defined by only one schema.
That may have worked for some simple, early ontologies playing
around with RDF in the early days, but it is unrealistic in a
larger world of ontologies which employ multiple vocabularies,
and multiple sources of definition, and where the identity of
a given functional vocabulary may in fact not be the same as
the namespace used to serialize some term's URI.
The job of the present RDF Core WG is to correct and clarify
such problems with the original spec, and my input to the WG
will reflect my opinion that the original spec is in error
in that regard.
Regards,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: [log in to unmask]
|