- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 10:17:52 +0200
- To: "ext Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, ext John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "'ht@inf.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, derhoermi@gmx.net, www-tag@w3.org
On Feb 16, 2005, at 20:49, ext Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > End of story? Sure. End of problem? No. > The versioning saga goes on. True, but the versioning should be for models, schemas, ontologies, and not namespaces specifically. Namespaces do not need versioning, because applications should not be concerned with syntactic issues insofar as their application specific behavior is concerned. What my applications care about is which version of a content model, or ontology -- not which namespace(s). Concern about namespaces should end once the parsing of serialized input is done, and until one must serialize output once again. The core logic of web and semantic web applications should never need to be concerned with specific namespaces, ever, and thus versioning of namespaces (even if done) should be a non-issue for applications. Cheers, Patrick > > len > > > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf > Of > ht@inf.ed.ac.uk > > It follows that _as defined in the Namespace REC_ there are infinitely > many names in every namespace. > > End of story. >
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 08:25:17 UTC