- 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
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 UTC