W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2004

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

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:49:12 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040220153953.0364de60@localhost>
To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org

Patrick,

I'm puzzled by your statement in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0000.html
[[
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
Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 15:49:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:39 GMT