> I admit my question might seem a stupid one, or pedantry just for the
> sake of it, but it seems to me that an XML Namespace can only be a
> collection of "names... that are used in XML documents as element types
> and attribute names".
>
> It seems to me that on this basis an XML Namespace can _not_ be a
> collection of DCMI terms, because a DCMI term is _not_ an XML element
> type name or XML attribute name. A DCMI term might (sometimes) be
> _represented_ by an XML element type name or an XML attribute name but
> that's not the same thing.
>
> So a "DCMI namespace" is not an XML namespace, it's a "term set" or
> something like that.....
I disagree. Firstly XML Namespaces are now used to contain terms that are
used in QNames for purposes other than element types or attribute names. An
example of this would be the QNames used for modes on templates in XSL. As
such the de facto definition of an XML Namespace is more accurately
"names... that *can be* used in XML documents as element types and attribute
names".
However such use is outside of the scope of
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/> so there isn't really a contradiction
with that document.
Considering the use of XML namespaces for purposes other than element and
attribute names it's notable that the ways in which XML namespaces are not
sets often no longer apply. Further we can state that while XML namespaces
are not sets, they can be (they are a superset of sets!).
When an XML namespace *is* a set, it is a set of terms. Hence it is a "term
set" and compatible with your definition of DCMI namespace.
Hence "DCMI namespace" is a subset of the subset of XML namespaces that is a
set.
/me fights urge to draw Venn diagram.
|