 |
 |
> From: Patrick Stickler <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: rdfs:isDefinedBy revisited > To: [log in to unmask] > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 > tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 > version=2.43 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE id KAA08800 > > > XML Schemata are indeed closer to representing the XML > > namespace. > > You appear to be equating "namespace" with "model" which > is an error. > > Different models may all utilize the same terms from the same > namespace, but with differing, even conflicting usage. A > prime example of this are the conflicting uses of xhtml:html > by the XHTML 1.0 strict/transitional versus frameset DTDs. > > A namespace is nothing but a set of names. A namespace includes > *nothing* about how those names are used. A namespace imparts > no semantics whatsoever to the names residing in that namespace. > > And I would go so far as to say that, technically, a namespace > URI does not in fact denote the actual set of names, but is simply > punctuation that differentiates a given set of names from other sets > of names. Yupp! That is in fact how XML Schema makes use of XML namespaces - Any XML Schema targeting a given XML namespace can define different sets of global/local names. Isn't it that the XML namespace just comes in with qname/name defaulting issues for attributes - is there any other functionality REQUIRED by XML 1.0/1.1 ? It seems to me that XML applications are free to realize additional functionality using the XML namespace URI - as for instance RDF is doing, by associating URIs for XML elements and XML attributes via concatenation, when parsing RDF/XML to triple sets. [The method of course does not allow to recover the namespace URI from the RDF triple set in general - a different issue -] > > Thus, a URI used as a namespace URI may very well denote something > else entirely, and dereferencing it returns a representation of > that other thing, not of the namespace. > > That, at least, is what the XML Namespaces spec says. Yupp! The notion of an XML Namespace allows for rather pathological uses. Don't think that's a bad thing - the existence of pathologies doesn't block the existence of well behaved subClasses. > > Now, the TAG is discussing a revised/enhanced interpretation > of the significance, meaning, and use of namespace URIs, but > at the moment, anything more than the above is just personal > preference and not defined in any standard. And I think it > will be along time before any concensus on more than that is > reached, so those producing standards which intersect with > the namespace quagmire should use a great deal of caution about > reading into what the existing specs say. Think the moral is, that standards may change over time. Is this new to humans? Cheers, rs > > ;-) > > Cheers, > > Patrick > >