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

AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,"'Jeff Lowery'" <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: "Nicolas Lehuen" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:28:04 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF62FF@HQ5>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
To: "'Nicolas Lehuen'" <nicolas.lehuen@u...>; "'Jeff Lowery'"
<jlowery@s...>
Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 10:16 PM
Subject: RE:  There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone


> Again, what is the difference in an arch form and a
> pile 'o attributes on the root?
>
> len

Maybe the pile of attributes, though crappy, can give more meta-data about
an element than the architectural form ? Unless, of course, you have a
standard way to bind an architecture and its architectural form to other
types of meta-data than "just" DTDs. That would be great. That's why we want
to be able to bind document types to meta-data resource directories.

Beginner's question : what is the difference between an architecture and a
namespace ? Is it that architectures have a meaning (i.e. meta-DTDs and
possibility to write code that process the AF following these meta-DTDs) and
allow renaming, whereas namespaces are just sets of names ? Is all the
discussion about namespaces due to the fact that for many, namespaces should
have the same meaning as architectures (i.e. contain meta-schemas and allow
element and attribute renaming) ?

Disclaimer : I just read David Megginson's documentation of XAF [1], which
implements a subset of AFs for XML. I'll try to read [2] in the future,
especially for the meta-DTD part, but right now my brains just melt at the
idea of reading a document which calls its sections 'subclauses'. Apparently
those people like giving complex names to trivial concepts :P.

Yes, I know, Architectural Forms vs namespaces have already been debated on
this list, before namespaces where adopted, as early as in 1997 [3]. So now
that namespaces are there, what can we learn from AF ?

I begin to understand your question "Why is this debate still being held
every year?". It seems that everything has already been said and done, so
why should you care ? Well, I may have an answer that may give you some hope
: it's because some of us are here to learn, and you can teach us :) !

[1] http://www.megginson.com/XAF/
[2] http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/docs/n1920/html/clause-A.1.html
[3] http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199705/msg00076.html

Regards,
Nicolas

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Taxonomies?
• Next by Date: Re: Taxonomies?
• Previous by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread