Pete,
> - at the risk of nit-picking! ;-)
At the risk of going too far in this respect...:
> To enhance human readability [and/or to meet the constraints of
> particular syntaxes (?)], URI references are sometimes expressed in the
> form of "Qualified Names", where the full URI reference is represented
> as a prefix and a "local name", and the prefix is associated with a URI
> reference known as the "Namespace URI reference". The full URI reference
> is formed from the Qualified Name by appending the local name to the
> Namespace URI reference that has been assigned to the prefix.
On the one hand, I am bothered by the notion that a URI
reference is "represented" by a prefix and local name because
I thought URI references were "represented" by Unicode strings
(and "expressed" doesn't seem quite right either). On the
other hand, I am slightly bothered by the notion that a URI
reference is "formed" by the process described.
To paraphrase your overall intent: "In the Beginning is the
URI Reference" -- and one derives QNames, etc, from the full
URI references. So I'm wondering if it could be helpful for
readers to make it clear that a Qualified Name is created by
"splitting" the URI Reference into a prefix and a suffix, and
that the process is by design reversible: the URI Reference
can be "reconstituted" by re-attaching the two parts, as in:
For purposes of readability or machine processing,
URI references are sometimes split into two parts to
create "Qualified Names" consisting of a prefix (a string
associated with a URI reference that is sometimes known as
the "Namespace URI reference") and a suffix (the "local
name" of the term referenced). The full URI reference
can be reconstituted from the Qualified Name by appending
the local name to the Namespace URI reference that has
been assigned to the prefix.
> Metadata terms are typically developed [created?] not as isolated terms
> but as groups of terms developed together for a purpose. [Should we call
> these "vocabularies", following the RDF Primer?]
"Vocabularies" is good.
> Apologies for the lengthy ramble: basically I disagree with the
> suggestion that assigning URI references to terms is so closely
> associated with the use of XML Namespaces, and I'd really prefer to see
> the discussion of assigning URI references to terms without any mention
> of XML Namespaces at all! ;-)
Very persuasive.
Tom
--
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: [log in to unmask]
