[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Begging the Question

• From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, Tim Bray <tbray@t...>,"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:20:29 +0000

> XML namespaces solve the problem it set out to solve yet
> because it is built on URIs leave open the opportunity to
> solve other problems, involving semantics, ontologies and
> schemata, that are as yet unsolved. It is these issues that we
> need to discuss and thrash out.

Yes, and it is frustrating to see everybody "arguing" that "namespaces are
names, now lets talk about the semantics" when everyone realises that.
Instead of underlining that point a hundred times, why don't we actually
accept the fact that:-
1) The namespace specification outlines an excellent way of defining unique
identifiers to XML fragments.
2) It mentions nothing about the further semantics of this meachanism:
which is not to say that we mustn't discuss it
3) Let's discuss it rationally!

BTW, Paul: You cannot say that namespaces shouldn't be dereferenced: that
would make RDF useless overnight. But on the othr hand, you cannot say that
everything shoyuld be dereferenced: that would be absurd!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RDF and Dereferencing
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Begging the Question
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>

• References:
  • RE: Begging the Question
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Begging the Question
• Next by Date: Re: Begging the Question
• Previous by thread: RE: Begging the Question
• Next by thread: Re: Begging the Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread