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

Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)

• To: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:33:16 +1000
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, "'Alessandro Triglia'" <sandro@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <425B350C.2020006@o...>
• Organization: Zenucom Pty Ltd
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206DC1@h...> <425B350C.2020006@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Bob Foster wrote:

> Wow, talk about trolling! ;-}
>
> How about we back up to: why do we care? It's those damn namespaces. 
> Suppose there were no namespaces. Suppose instead of namespaces, there 
> were only globally unique names.
>
i'm warming to namespaces. as my world gets sudsier (soapier?) the 
namespace is an easy way to get at parts of messages i'm interested in. 
eg multiple payloads in different namespaces.

or am i just abusing the technology?

rick

> Because it's simpler to use an authority than to pretend we can 
> calculate a globally unique name, suppose we use inverted domain 
> names. That is, for a registered domain "x.y", its globally unique 
> names are constructed with the prefix "y.x". Then we might have 
> "com.intergraph.bullard.len" as a globally unique name.
>
> End of story. No namespaces. Nobody ever asks if "com.intergraph" is a 
> "resource", whatever that is, because it's patently obvious it isn't.
>
> We don't need namespaces and never did. Imagine how many person-hours 
> would have been saved if we didn't have them. ;-}
>
> Bob Foster
>
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > That's the critical observation for this and many other
> > threads that rely on ontological commitment to sustain
> > communications.
> >
> > Would anyone care to compare that to URIs as a unit of
> > information:
> >
> > 1.  Is a URI a resource?
> >
> > 2.  If it is a resource, what operations are significant?
> >
> > 3.  Are URIs ever ambiguous?
> >
> > Yes, I know: the permathread from hell.
> >
> > len
> >
> > From: Alessandro Triglia [mailto:sandro@m...]
> >
> > The writer makes choices, but a reader cannot always tell which of 
> those
> > choices (if any) convey some semantics in the intentions of the 
> writer and
> > which do not.  In other words, an XML document may contain more 
> information
> > than the writer considers significant, but a given reader may not be 
> able to
> > separate the non-significant part from the significant part.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
> !DSPAM:425b35b6245191264238537!
>

begin:vcard
fn:Rick  Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick 
email;internet:rjm@z...
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
    • From: Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...>

• References:
  • Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-info set)
• Next by Date: Is the XML Schema Test Collection still alive
• Previous by thread: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by thread: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread