W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2006

Re: [xml-dev] Re: RDDL: new natures

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:38:31 +0000
Message-ID: <457D3527.6040203@ldodds.com>
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
CC: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, www-tag@w3.org, XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>

Jonathan Borden wrote:

> What I *don't* want to say is that <http://example.org/foo.xsd> is a 
> member of the XML Schema namespace. Using 
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema> as the URI for the nature of "XML 
> Schema" creates this ambiguity for ***software agents***. I understand 
> that you, Elliotte, being an intelligent human being can distinguish 
> this contextual difference, but the type of logic that you are using to 
> do this is actually rather complicated. This is admittedly a technical 
> issue, but as far as I can see a real one.

And doesn't a sofware agent have enough context to disambiguate this
usage, i.e that a xlink:role on a rddl:resource indicates that the
associated resource has a type of http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema?

In other words, shouldn't the agent conform to the spec?

Using the namespace uri as the nature of the resource is a handy
as it avoids any prior co-ordination to agree on the URIs. Otherwise
the RDDL spec will need to assign well-known URIs, or community
will have to agree on its URIs; both of which seem to offer 
opportunities for "URI aliasing" which will surely cause *greater* 
confusion for software agents.



Home: http://www.ldodds.com      | "Simplicity is the ultimate
Blog: http://www.ldodds.com/blog | sophistication" -- Leonardo da Vinci
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 10:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:50 UTC