John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
I don't think so. RDF defines such a mapping, but (for example)
XSchema, which allows identification of type by qname, does not. I
might be a little less nervous about qname proliferation if they were in
fact isomorphic to URIs.
> It would be more consistent
> for you to attack URIs, QNames, and IP addresses, all of which are
> universal agreements creating global names,
Well, such universal agreements are expensive. We have two: the IP
address space and the DNS. We hace a universal naming scheme, the URI,
that builds on these. Can we please stop and not invent any more?
> in favor of some UUCP-like
> scheme
-Tim
UUCP hehe, one long-ago signature:
Tim Bray {decvax!microsoft!, ihnp4!alberta!} ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray
