xml-dev discussion of TAG work on RDDL Natures

Readers of this list may be intersted in the discussion on xml-dev that 
starts with the note that Jonathan Borden posted to announce a new set of 
recommended RDDL natures inspired by the TAG's suggestions.  [1]. Elliotte 
Rusty Harold is unconvinced [2] that using the namespace URI for RDDL 
natures is inappropriate.  Jonathan defends the TAG's position [3] saying:

"This is why it is problematic:

A class has a (i.e. one) set or group of members. If a namespace URI 
identifies a class then what is the set of members:

a) the set of names in the namespace (for example)
b) the set of documents that validate to a given schema (for example)

If we are using namespace URIs as natures then these two get confused." 

Elliotte writes back to say he remains unconvinced [4].

Noah

[1] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00044.html
[2] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00048.html
[3] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00050.html
[4] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200612/msg00051.html

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------