- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:36:40 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- CC: paul.downey@bt.com, ext John Boyer <JBoyer@PureEdge.com>, "'ht@inf.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>, ext Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, derhoermi@gmx.net, www-tag@w3.org
Patrick Stickler wrote: > And to the recieving agent, it is crystal clear which version > of which model to employ to interpret the data instance, > and namespaces can be left at the syntax layer where they > belong -- and where they do a good job of avoiding naming > collisions. OK. I think I'm beginning to get your point. I disagree with it, but maybe I'm beginning to understand why you don't like RDDL. RDDL is simply not attempting to solve the problem you want to solve. A RDDL document describes a namespace, not a model. I think that's OK. The problems RDDL is trying to solve are perfectly valid problems that arise in practice, and RDDL solves them very neatly. Beyond that, I completely disagree at a very fundamental level with the whole goal of exchanging interoperable models as opposed to merely exchanging syntax. Your model used for interpretation of the data may or may not be what I want or need to use to interpret the same data. Models are properly a local decision, not something to be exchanged and legislated. Models are fundamentally non-interoperable because different people have different needs and therefore need different models. Exchanging the model with the document is an attempt to impose the sender's view of that document onto the receiver; but the receiver may have very good reasons to want to process that model differently than the receiver wants it to be processed. For instance, think of stock analysts receiving a company's financial data. Why should the analysts accept the company's model of profit, depreciation, stock option expensing and so forth rather than using their own that they find to be more predictive of the market? RDDL is useful because it doesn't attempt to impose processing. All a RDDL document says is, "You seem to be looking for some information about elements in this namespace. Here's some further information that might be useful." Because RDDL places humans front and center and allows them to make the ultimate decision of what is and is not relevant to their needs, RDDL works, for the very small problem it's trying to solve. The problem you're trying to solve is much harder, will not be solved by a single namespace document as you point out, and probably should not be solved. That doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the problem of hitting 404s when loading a namespace URI into a browser, though. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 10:36:43 UTC