Readers of this list may be intersted in the discussion on xml-dev that starts with the note that Jonathan Borden posted to announce a new set of recommended RDDL natures inspired by the TAG's suggestions. [1]. Elliotte Rusty Harold is unconvinced [2] that using the namespace URI for RDDL natures is inappropriate. Jonathan defends the TAG's position [3] saying: "This is why it is problematic: A class has a (i.e. one) set or group of members. If a namespace URI identifies a class then what is the set of members: a) the set of names in the namespace (for example) b) the set of documents that validate to a given schema (for example) If we are using namespace URIs as natures then these two get confused." Elliotte writes back to say he remains unconvinced [4]. Noah [1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00044.html [2] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00048.html [3] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00050.html [4] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00051.html -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------Received on Sunday, 10 December 2006 15:54:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:56:04 GMT