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

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses, take 2

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:26:02 -0500
Message-ID: <036301c1ba55$35418f40$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, "TAG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>
> > TimBL made the point that if the only definitive material
> > I have about my namespace is, say, an XML Schema, why
> > not use that as a namespace document? i.e. why use
> > indirection just for the sake of it?
>
> Preserving diversity at that stage in processing seems like a wise idea
> to me.  Indirection preserves choice by readers.  Recommending that as
> best practice to authors seems to be more than "indirection just for the
> sake of it".
>

I strongly agree that indirection should be promoted as a best practice.

From the point of view of efficiency, it doesn't matter either way:

RDDL HTTP extensions  http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/httpext can be used as
_transparent_ URI based content negotiation when the requesting software
knows exactly what it wants and what it wants it for e.g. an XML Schema to
be used for schema validation.

RDDL client software handles the case where a single, non-RDDL entity is
returned on resolving a URI:

If the media type is text or application/xml _and_ the root element is
namespace qualified, a single rddl:resource is returned having a RDDL nature
equal to the root element namespace, otherwise the media type is converted
into a URI by prepending:

http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/

to the returned media type. This URI forms the RDDL nature.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 16:28:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT