Re: Potential new issue: PSVI considered harmful

/ "Jonathan Borden" <> was heard to say:
| So, at the end of the day, we don't necessarily need an entirely new type
| system, just a way to identify types. The wrinkle that needs to be sorted
| out is whether we ought identify types by:
| a) QNames, as in XML Schema
| b) URI refs as in RDF(S)/OWL.

Right, modulo this issue, for simple types at least, I'd like to think
that we could say a type is identified by a QName. If I say it's a
foo:bar, that's what it is. If you happen to know about foo:bar types,
you may know that it's a subtype of foo:mumble. Or you may not.

Yes, this would introduce some interoperability problems, but I think
it's a mistake to try to make interoperability problems impossible by
prescribing that there be only a single set of datatypes for the
entire world of applications.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM   | Where it is permissible both to die and not to
XML Standards Engineer | die, it is an abuse of valour to die.--Mencius
XML Technology Center  | 
Sun Microsystems, Inc. | 

Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 15:12:00 UTC