- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 09:19:36 -0400
- To: xml-names-issues@w3.org
- Cc: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
on Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:35:30 -0400 Murray wrote: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-names-issues/1998JulSep/0059 >Part of the namespace spec deals with XML's namespace partitions, >but does not state clearly all of the *parts of a name*, >nor how those parts can be combined to yield a fully-qualified >name for any XML object. On behalf of the RDF work, I submit that it is not the place of the XML Namespace Specification to define how parts are combined to yield a fully qualified name. Creating such a definition will constrain future applications of the namespace specification to define a mapping from this FQN to whatever internal structure they choose to use. >it is essential that the name parts be identified and an >agreed protocol be defined for naming the names of XML objects. RDF specifically wishes to leave flexibility for schema implementors to use the URI hierarchy and fragment mechanisms to partition their names in the manner they deem most appropriate for the application. For example, a short metadata vocabulary might be defined within a single HTTP resource using fragments to name the individual objects while a long vocabulary (some are expected to grow to order of tens of thousands of objects) would likely use a different partition design in order to have efficient retrieval of a subset of the definitions. Respectfully, -Ralph Swick W3C/MIT Metadata Activity Lead
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 1998 09:22:29 UTC