W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Comments on Architecture of the World Wide Web, First Edition

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:39:24 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>,
Cc: www-archive@w3.org

Oops!  The reply below was intended for Patrick Stickler individually (and 
copying the public archive) -- not the public-webarch-comments@w3.org 
list.  Please do not consider it an official comment on the WebArch document.

David Booth

>Message-Id: <>
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:49:12 -0500
>To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
>From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: Comments on Architecture of the World Wide Web, First
>   Edition
>Cc: www-archive@w3.org
>I'm puzzled by your statement in
>It is incorrect to suggest that there is any semantic relation between
>the meaning of a URI used as a namespace name and the meaning of terms
>grounded in that namespace.
>It seems to me that the TAG's "Good practice: Namespace documents"
>( http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#namespace-docs ) is trying
>to say that there *should* be a relationship between the namespace URI and
>the namespace vocabulary, in that there *should* be a document at the
>namespace URI that gives information about the namespace vocabulary.
>Are you saying that you think this is wrong to advocate?  Or are you simply
>observing that the namespace URI (since it can be *any* URI) could be
>assigned meaning in some vocabulary X, but vocabulary X may be semantically
>unrelated to the vocabulary that the namespace URI is used to identify when
>it is used as a namespace?  Or are you saying something else entirely?
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 09:39:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 23 February 2004 09:39:38 EST