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

Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses

• To: ext Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Subject: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:23:50 +0200
• Cc: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3C72FB76.48DE5212@r...>
• User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309

On 2002-02-20 3:27, "ext Ronald Bourret" <rpbourret@r...> wrote:

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> 
>> On 2002-02-18 8:00, "ext Tim Bray" <tbray@t...> wrote:
>> Also in item 4, you say "when you use something whose most common
>> application is retrieval, and you use it to identify something which has
>> supporting definitive material, it is wilfully perverse not to connect the
>> retrieval function with the supporting material." which I both agree
>> with, and also consider to be a good argument for not using 'http:' URIs
>> for *anything* which is not intended to be HTTP GETable, including
>> abstract or non-digital resources, vocabulary terms, etc. etc. This is
>> a very nice argument for URPs ;-)
> 
> I agree with Patrick here. This is a good argument against using URLs as
> a namespace name. Reality sides with Tim, though, as standing in the way
> of widespread expectations about the resolvability of URLs used as
> namespace names is like standing in front of an 18-wheel truck.

I'm not afraid. I'm wearing a helmet.  (and fortunately, if
you drop fast enough, 18-wheel trucks have reasonable ground
clearance... it's all in the timing...  ;-)

> I also think that the real thrust of Patrick's argument echoes that of
> the recent debate on RDDL. RDDL is a nice way to find information about
> a given namespace, but it is insufficient for document processing in the
> general case given the wide variation in namespace semantics that Tim
> points out in item (2). That is, it may be possible to process a
> document based solely on the information in various RDDL documents, but
> this is unlikely to be true in general.

I think that's basically right. RDDL as it is now has limited
general functionality. With a few tweaks, it would have more
general functinality -- and could be a reasonable interim
solution until DDDS and other technologies mature and gain
broad enough deployment.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@n...

• References:
  • Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: RE: SOAP-RPC and REST and security
• Next by Date: Re: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Next by thread: RE: Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread