Re: Namespaces spec is incomplete

At 09:19 AM 9/15/98 -0400, Ralph R. Swick wrote:
>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.
>
Does that apply to the the description of the namespace partition 
that currently appears in the WD? That is, does RDF wish to leave
out the current namespace partition language to allow flexibility?




Murray Maloney, Esq.          Phone: (905) 509-9120
Muzmo Communication Inc.      Fax:   (905) 509-8637
671 Cowan Circle              Email: murray@muzmo.com
Pickering, Ontario 		Email: murray@yuri.org
Canada, L1W 3K6

Received on Tuesday, 15 September 1998 09:28:47 UTC