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

RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: [xml-d

  • To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
  • Subject: RE: Rethinking namespaces, attribute remapping (was Re: TAG on HLink)
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:51:54 -0500

groves topic maps
Emotions thrill and enable.  As long as you are 
making progress, let them ride. Really offensive stuff 
will kick off the list filters. :-)

A concise description of the "mess" minus the "how" is 
wanted.  We're all just beavers.  If the dam is leaking, 
best to stop the leak first and not worry about how or 
which beavers put in a bad log.

The current attractor seems to be arch form style remapping vs namespaces 
with the lakshman rekha being self-descriptive vs augmented documents. 
Is that it?

As I recall, one aspect of groves and topic maps (can't be 
more precise than that) was that the means by which identity 
is established had to be explicitly denoted.  We've just 
seen a long round on the identity issues which might just 
be "what are the explicit properties of a document and how 
are they established" discussion which is a lot like the 
PSVI.  

I am wondering if there is a nugget here that is 
shared by all of these issues.  We don't seem to be able 
to have an efficient self-descriptive document and we 
don't want to accept augmentation via external documents 
(eg, DTDs, schemas).  Is this an impasse that can be 
met by compromises in certain applications, but only 
narrowly and for a given application, but otherwise, 
kicks off the same discussion for any new problem?  

I am beginning to believe that attempting to work 
with self-descriptive systems for any given problem 
in every case is a non-starter.  Well-formedness 
simply isn't enough for interoperability; portability, 
yes, but not interoperability.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

I'm still waiting for an open explanation of how we got into this mess
in the first place, and why the TAG so unanimously opted to reject
HLink.  We're missing a lot of context that would help clear technical
discussion, so don't be surprised that you're getting a lot of emotions.

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.