W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2004

Re: ACTION NW 2004/05/14: Propose text on tradeoffs for section 4.2.2.

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:48:15 -0400
To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF233C692E.88538F61-ON85256EC2.00615CFA@lotus.com>

Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:

>> This is an issue for processing software, 
>> not for the XML vocabulary itself.

I'm not sure I completely agree.  I think that many vocabularies have a 
meaning, typically as set forth in their human- and/or machine-readable 
specifications, independent of whether and how software is used for 
processing.  So, if I invent a Noah's Business Card format ncard a typical 
example of which might be:

<ncard xmlns=''http://example.org/ncardsAreUs/ns1">
  <name>Bob Smith</name>
  <phone>123-555-1212</phone>
</ncard>

I don't think it's just processing software that particularly determines 
whether the following has any meaning:

<ncard xmlns=''http://example.org/ncardsAreUs/ns1">
  <name>Bob Smith</name>
  <phone>123-555-1212</phone>
  <airplaneSpec:wingStressLimit 
xmlns:airplaneSpec=''http://example.org/airplanesAreUs/nsA">
        45.37
  </airplaneSpec:wingStressLimit>
</ncard>

Presumably, a well written spec for ncard, perhaps taken in conjunction 
with the spec for "airplaneSpec:wingStressLimit" would answer as to 
whether the above would be syntactically acceptable in an ncard, and if so 
what semantic might be conveyed by the combined vocabulary.  So, I think I 
agree with Norm that the issues is inherent in the vocabulary, though with 
ramifications no doubt in processing software.

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 13:52:12 GMT

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