Re: Names, namespaces and languages

On Sat, 2005-06-25 at 10:24 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
[...]
> So feedback is very much in order.

Lots of good stuff. I think I agree with the main thesis
about the "middle (or 80/20) view".

I also agree that "The minimalist reading is the only one consistent
with actual usage -- people mint new namespaces by simply using them in
an expanded name or namespace declaration"

but I don't know about "... without thereby incurring any obligation
to define the boundaries of some set."

Especially if they're "minting" the namespace name, i.e. using
it without copying it from someplace else, and using a name that
they own, then they do incur an obligation to

 ... provide representations of the resource it identifies
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#pr-describe-resource


If they're minting a name that they don't own, they're squatting.
(Do we say "don't do that" somewhere? maybe that's one of our
newer issues... Anyway...)

If they're using a name that they copied from somewhere
else, they're trusting that whoever did mint it provides a
representation, and they have a sort of general "yes, I am
my brother's keeper" obligation to prevent fraud.

And I think the representation corresponding to a namespace
document should, in fact, tell you something about the
expanded names that are intended to be used with that namespace
name.

I like to call this _grounding_ terms in the web.

I think I've written about it before, but it's time for our
teleconference now, so I guess I'll send this.

ah... here's one relevant bit...

grounding terms in URI space
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2005Mar/0011.html


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 17:00:54 UTC