Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: well-formed Web
 Simon St.Laurent wrote: > Norm Walsh writes; > >>I see two central arguments in this piece: >> >>1. Globally unique names aren't necessary. The context is, in >>practice, always well known. It follows that it's not a problem that >>your <forsale> for a distributed ebay application and my <forsale> for >>a distributed real estate application mean entirely different things. >>You're not really going to point your bidder at my files and I'm not >>going to point my real-estate searcher at your files. > > > I'm very confused about how you see this as an argument in the piece. > The article doesn't so much as mention namespaces. All it says (in my > reading) is that putting XML up on the Web is interesting and useful. > > Did you read: > http://bitworking.org/wellformed.html > > Or did you click through to something else? > I merely dropped the namespaces from the examples to make them simpler and hopefully easier to read. <snip> > >>Similarly, the semantics of a vocabulary are always known to the users >>of the vocabulary and there's no benefit in associating semantics in >>an independent, programmatic way. And really, if I wanted to >>communicate the semantics of <forsale> and <bid>, I could do it by >>transformation. >> >>You may be right. >> >>But what's preventing you from implementing this vision today? No one >>says you must use namespaces. No one says you must use any technology >>you don't want to. > > > The writer makes clear that he doesn't want to use RDF, but apart from > the fact that he doesn't use namespaces in his his examples, I don't > think he makes the complaint you suggest. > I wrested with putting namespaces into the examples, but left them out to make the examples as simple as possible. If I were to really start implementing this system I would put the elements into a namespace, and use other namespaces as appropriate for other elements. > >>Now, if you're developing a technology that you want to interoperate >>with other technologies that have adopted namespaces for global name >>disambiguation and RDF for describing semantic relationships, I might >>encourage you to use those technologies as well. I might even express >>the opinion that I think you should. >> >>I think there are significant benefits (engineering, training, etc.) >>in reusing technologies. Even technologies that aren't exactly the way >>I'd like them to be. > > > I don't see any place in this document that argues otherwise. The > strongest thing claim I see here is that XML 1.0 is useful stuff when > put on the Web. > My point in writing the essay was that re-using existing technologies is a good thing. I tried to show by example that you can get significant mileage out of XML and HTTP alone. The idea being that I don't need to wait around for the Semantic Web to implement the scenarios that Paul Ford proposed in his essay. > Maybe Joe will have some better answers to your questions. > Hopefully I did :) -joe -- http://bitworking.org 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
