[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDDL: new natures
Elliotte Harold wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: >> After alot of useful discussion on the TAG, it has been pointed >> out to me that some of the URIs that we originally selected for >> RDDL natures don't make sense. In particular we were using >> namespace URIs as the RDDL natures of things whereas the RDDL >> nature of something is really a class or group that it belongs to. > > I must have missed something. Why is this considered necessary? The > namespace URI seems like a perfectly natural way to identify a class > or group that it belongs to. I thought it was perfectly natural also. This is why it is problematic: A class has a (i.e. one) set or group of members. If a namespace URI identifies a class then what is the set of members: a) the set of names in the namespace (for example) b) the set of documents that validate to a given schema (for example) If we are using namespace URIs as natures then these two get confused. For example: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema does this identify EITHER a) the set of names in the XML Schema namespace OR b) the set of possible valid XML Schema documents. > >> In response to the TAG request I've updated http://www.rddl.org/ >> natures to deprecate the old nature URIs and suggest new URIs. >> This is all of the form: > > I wish there were a more formal procedure for updating RDDL. Even > if I were convinced that using namespace URIs as natures was a bad > idea (and I'm not), I still wouldn't want to change the natures at > this late date. I'd like to raise a formal objection to this, and > request that at least the existing RDDL natures be maintained as > is, unchanged, and without any new values for the same natures. The procedure has been to discuss this on XML-DEV. More recently discussion of RDDL has taken place on WWW-TAG. These discussions have gone on for over two years including these specific issues. I can assure you that no changes to RDDL are being done rashly nor quickly. Furthermore as has always been the case, the RDDL natures given in http://www.rddl.org/natures are merely guidelines or a place to put "well known" natures. Nowhere in the RDDL specification (http:// www.rddl.org) does it prevent you from using the "old" natures -- although I suspect that the TAG may have something more pointed to say about this. In any case RDDL natures have never been intended to be a fixed set of values. As always I am willing to listen to discussion. Jonathan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|