W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2002

RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine readable content

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:38:53 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A9A@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'TAG'" <www-tag@w3.org>
David,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: 08 April 2002 17:54
> To: 'TAG'
> Subject: RE: [namespaceDocument-8]: format for machine 
> readable content
> 
> Stuart,
> 
> Perhaps what the TAG should do on issues that require new or changes to
> existing specifications is to proceed to create proof-of-concepts, and
then
> hand the work over to another WG.  In this case, XML Core seems a likely
> place to go.
> 
> A Process along the lines of:
> 1. Here's the principles of the web as we see them, including 
> a particular delta.
> 2. Here's a POC of a solution to the delta
> 3. Can you (XML Core) do the work of making this into a "real"
> specification?
> 4. We (TAG) volunteer to have at least some of us work with 
> you on this.

I like the spirit of this.

> My biggest concern is that I don't think the TAG should be precluded from
> writing syntax.  IMHO, that would be a terrible mistake.

I agree with that too... need to give some thought too... I guess that
explicit TAG member participation (because of TAG membership) would be as an
invited expert as opposed to participation as normal WG members (because of
member company interest).

> But the process I suggested about would address the fact that 
> some group is going to have to do the real work and ongoing maintenance.

:-)

> From a process perspective, I don't see the difference between an
> Architecture Recommendation and a Recommendation.  It seems that the
> difference is that an Architecture Recommendation has a broader scope.  
> So Namespaces itself would be considered an Architecture Recommendation -
we
> seem to believe that Namespaces is a fundamental principle.

Not sure.... the Namespaces REC gets to the concrete syntax of how to
declare and use XML Namespaces in namespace documents.

I think it is less clear architecturally about the properties of a
namespace.

The main architectural principle in the namespaces rec is that NS's are
named by URI.

Areas where more architectural clarity would be useful about:

 - The (intended) relationship (if any) between terms that inhabit the same
namespace. 

 - The (intended) relationship (if any) between terms that inhabit different
namespaces. 

 - The namespaces inhabited by unqualified element names and unqualified
attribute names 
   (the Non-Normative Annex)

 - The (intended) relationship (if any) between an XML namespace and the
vocabulary of an XML 
   application (language)

 - The (intended) relationship (if any) between an XML language and the XML
Namespaces from which
   its vocabulary is drawn (eg. xlink: is intended to be used in the defn of
other languages).

There are probably many more like this...


> Cheers,
> Dave

Regards

Stuart
--
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 08:39:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:06 GMT