W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Significant W3C Confusion over Namespace Meaning and Policy

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:28:20 +0000
Message-ID: <421617A4.4040008@eircom.net>
To: www-tag@w3.org

Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 18, 2005, at 12:36, ext Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 
>
>> Exchanging the model with the document is an attempt to impose the 
>> sender's view of that document onto the receiver;
> 
> 
> Not impose, just communicate.

That depends. For example formats that have mU can enforce a particular 
evaluation. This is worth calling on this forum out as it indicates a 
fundamental difference between Semweb and WS approaches.


>> The problem you're trying to solve is much harder, will not be solved 
>> by a single namespace document as you point out, and probably should 
>> not be solved. That doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the problem of 
>> hitting 404s when loading a namespace URI into a browser, though.
> 
> 
> Again, I have no problem with folks using RDDL to publish
> representations of namespace documents via a namespace name,
> so long as the namespace name URI actually identifies the
> namespace document.
> 
> What I am concerned with, is agents making presumptions about
> the interpretation of namespace name URIs which are not
> licensed by any specs and developers being confused about
> what behavior they can rely on versus what constitutes
> optional, localized practice.

Web/WS is looser in its use of names than Semweb technology is - for 
example I think you'll find that most folks that use RDDL don't care too 
much about what is identified because the value of obtaining the 
document outweighs such concerns. But I suspect this localized practice 
argument also applies to models and interpretation of terms.

cheers
Bill
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 16:29:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:32 GMT