- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:51:08 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Jonathan Borden writes: > primarily because this goes the ideas that > the nature of an XML document might be > determined by the namespace of the root element. Well, I think that the nature of an XML document may well be determined, or at least bounded, by the >QName< of the root element. I don't think the namespace does it. Consider a single namespace that includes two or more element QNames both of which were designed to be used as root elements. For example, I might in the same namespace (shown with prefix ns:) have: <ns:purchaseOrder> .... </ns:purchaseOrder> and also <ns:invoice> .... </ns:invoice> Surely it's wrong to say that the nature of these documents is determined by their namespaces. One's a purchase order, the other an invoice. Both are in the same namespace. I think RDDL should be capable of capturing these separate natures. Now, in the case of: <soap:envelope> <soap:body> <ns:purchaseOrder> .... </ns:purchaseOrder> </soap:body> </soap:envelope> I think that the QName <soap:envelope> bounds the nature to being a SOAP envelope, but it does not fully distinguish between a SOAP envelope that's an invoice or a purchase order. Whether RDDL should account for this second level of refinement I'm not sure. Saying it's an envelope is correct as far as it goes. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 23:51:22 UTC