Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis?

-----Original Message-----
From: Liam Quin <>
To: <>
Date: Saturday, May 27, 2000 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: Namespaces and namespace names: a new synthesis?

>Larry Masinter wrote:
>> You have to define what it means for two namespaces to be "the same".
>> There's no obvious, unique, equivalence relationship.

The relation is, I think (but you have to swallow that there is a philosophy
the meaning of a message here ;-). Suppose a message M2 uses namespace n1
with URI u1, and is a valid representation to the receiver of the intent of
the author,
and a message M2, formed by taking M1 and changing it by only
changing all occurrences of u1 to u2. If in all such cases M2 is also a
representation to the receiver of the intent of the author then u1 and u2
equivalent namspaces.

Liam said:
>All of these problems stem from using a URI as a name for something
>instead of idenftifying the location for something.

No no no no no.  An HTTP URI  is a name, and there is a lookup function
for it.  There are not rules against reuse imposed globally, but there are
as many levels of indirection as you like available.

Please stop refering to it as a location....!

>It *would* make sense to compare two documents that defined namespaces,
>although no-one has invented such things yet.

The syntax of a namespace can be defined by a schema langauge.
There is of course more definitive information about a namespace,
but so long as you realize that there will always be teh posisbility of
encoding mroe information with better technology, then a schema is a good
place to start.

>It would also make sense to have a "metaschema" document that contained
>publicly-agreed-upon names of namespaces.

What, a central registry for all namespaces? [The centralization alarm goes
off. ..] Think of each Filemaker pro database generating a new namespace
and a new schema for it.

>Finally, it would make sense to abandon the idea of having a URI in there
>at all, and use a formally defined name, preferably one that does not
>start with "http:" in any examples :-)

So, rather than simply focuss this debate on the incomapatability between
comparisons and relative URIs, the "names vs addresses" can of wroms has

>Liam Quin - Barefoot in Toronto - -

whose desktop is now is a mess and is wondering whether he's missed any
messages..and pauses to reboot.

Received on Sunday, 28 May 2000 21:21:56 UTC