Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jeff Lowery wrote: > But John, the "why" George treats your "foo" differently from my "foo" is > the namespace; but the "how" there treated differently is dependent on the > associated semantics, To be sure, but those are in no way bound to the namespace. I may (and do) define a document type which contains mixtures of the RDF, RDFS, XHTML, DC, and Reuters Health namespaces; the last of these doesn't have any semantics of its own, but simply reflects a hodge-podge of elements that we cooked up ourselves because the other namespaces didn't supply them. > So yes, a namespace is just a labeled set of names, I would rather say that a namespace is a set of labeled names. > but the whole point of > the namespace's existence is the semantics that are there, hidden away in > some past conversation or some associated documentation, or (partly) in some > schema somewhere. Otherwise, why would George ever bother to "treat" the > data associated with the namespaces names at all? The semantics is bound to the particular elements and attributes, not to the namespace as such. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
