- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:39:24 -0500
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>,
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Oops! The reply below was intended for Patrick Stickler individually (and copying the public archive) -- not the public-webarch-comments@w3.org list. Please do not consider it an official comment on the WebArch document. Thanks David Booth >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040220153953.0364de60@localhost> >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:49:12 -0500 >To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org >From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> >Subject: Re: Comments on Architecture of the World Wide Web, First > Edition >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 -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 09:39:28 UTC