W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: RDDL and XML Schema instances are not valid representations of namespaces

From: Still, Erik R <erik.r.still@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 14:58:57 -0800
Message-ID: <C424B3FE8505AF41855DCD49E653FFC02389CF@XCH-NW-20.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

Patrick,

Having read several of your objections to thinking of RDDL instances as representations of a namespace 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0412.html), I have to say that I'm beginning to see your point - but 
it seems that your objections are semantic/philosophical rather than practical.

Consider a language as an analogy.  There are many reference items (e.g., dictionaries, thesauri, style guides, usage 
rules) that define the parameters of a language.  And yet I think that we can agree that even the collection of all of these 
resources does not *represent* a language.  Perhaps, in a similar way, all the resources pointed to by a RDDL file do 
not *represent* a namespace.  So what?  Such resources do represent vital information to namespace users, and what 
I am trying to figure out is how to provide access to those resources.  (Of course, we have a separate question regarding 
stewardship of a namespace, and what resources should be considered authoritative.)

Please forgive me for not going back very far in the TAG archives, but do you have an example of that which you suggest 
("What is required is a means to obtain such useful information in terms of any URI in a manner that fits with intuitions 
about resources and representations, rather than a hack that is simply convenient but disregards such intuitions.")?

Sincerely,

	- Erik

Erik Still
CENTRAL Registry
Boeing Library Services
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 18:48:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT