- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:30:29 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m28x84x5uy.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Although the thread that this message[1] started was interesting, and even though I've thought about the issue a fair bit in the intervening months, I find that I am still unable to make progress on namespaceDocument-8. I don't believe that further time spent thinking about the issue will help, at least not without some new insights. The remaining sticking point, I think, is the observation that a statement of this form: <http://docbook.org/xml/5.0b1/rng/docbook.rng> assoc:nature <http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0> . is unnacceptable to some members of the TAG. There are a number of grounds on which I recall hearing objection: 1. That the URIs used for "nature" vary considerably. Sometimes they're namespace documents, sometimes they're web pages, etc. The lack of a concise definition for the range of types of values that can be "natures" is problematic. 2. That the URIs are not evidently matters of fact, they are simple assertions. This could be mitigated if we replaced some of the URIs with facts (i.e., instead of using the namespace of a vocabulary, we could use QName of the document element of documents in that vocabulary). But I don't think there was general agreement that that strategy would work, even if we could find matters of fact for all of them, which I can't. 3. Because the range is broad and the definitions aren't observable facts, there's no precedent for inventing new values. I have some sympathy for this last point. I have a long standing action item with the XSL/XML Query WGs to produce a RDDL document for the XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators namespace document. I've been waiting for the TAG issue to be resolved partly because I imagined that its resolution would involve inventing a few more natures and purposes, specifically in my case, ones for the nature 'XPath function' and the purpose 'computing a result'. Unless something changes, I'm going to suggest that the TAG abandon this issue as irresolvable. Be seeing you, norm [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007May/0014.html -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 15:29:19 UTC