Re: Collect Proposed wordings (Was: Can everyone be happy?)

> Reminder: It is not at all clear at this time that the person defining
the
> namespace is in fact defining semantics in any strong sense of the term.
It
> is certainly _preferable_ if everyone agrees that a particular expanded
> name should be used for specific purposes. But there is nothing in
today's
> architecture which documents that intent, never mind acts on it or
enforces
> it.

I agree, but I am not talking about the user of the identifier defining
any semantics - the identifier is opaque. But when I as a user pick a name
from some URI space (in order not to confuse it with XML namespaces), the
URI space defines some properties for that name: can it be hierarchical,
is it persistent, etc. etc. When I use a name from that URI space, I have
to follow the rules the URI space dictates. This is very distinct,
however, from any semantics that I define for the resource having the
identifier. I define the semantics for my resource, I just use the
properties of the name I give it.

Henrik