- 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