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>

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>

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
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 13:52:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:42 UTC