- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:49:12 -0500
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Patrick, I'm puzzled by your statement in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004Feb/0000.html [[ It is incorrect to suggest that there is any semantic relation between the meaning of a URI used as a namespace name and the meaning of terms grounded in that namespace. ]] It seems to me that the TAG's "Good practice: Namespace documents" ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#namespace-docs ) is trying to say that there *should* be a relationship between the namespace URI and the namespace vocabulary, in that there *should* be a document at the namespace URI that gives information about the namespace vocabulary. Are you saying that you think this is wrong to advocate? Or are you simply observing that the namespace URI (since it can be *any* URI) could be assigned meaning in some vocabulary X, but vocabulary X may be semantically unrelated to the vocabulary that the namespace URI is used to identify when it is used as a namespace? Or are you saying something else entirely? -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Friday, 20 February 2004 15:49:16 UTC