Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Rick Jelliffe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:58:07 +0800
From: Simon St.Laurent <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> So does this mean you want to formalize what you called the 'lucky dip'
> earlier this year in regard to URIs, where there may be times when
> (namespaceURI=schemaURI) works and other times where it doesn't?
No, I think there can still be a convention established with respects the
For example, the convention could be that dereferencng the namespace URI
(when it is an http:, at least) results in:
* a structural schema (XML Schema, DTD, or HTML documentation, or other
schema like Schematron, RELAX, XDR, SOX, DSD, etc determined by content
* a semantic schema (RDF Schema) also containing links to structural
schema(s) according to a well-kown convention;
* some definite kind of directory or resource discovery document, to be
decided, which allows systematic retrieval of lots of different kinds of
resource, including links to semantic and structural schemas;
* or nothing.
This should be a recommendatation distinct from the Namespaces REC. This at
least provides a way forward, by blocking out things like allowing the
namespaces URI to be a CSS documents etc.
So rather than seeing the different resources as competitive, it establishes
a hierarchy, where we always know how to get to a structural schema (if one
exists) and a semantic schema (if one exists) by chaining along the
namespace URI. This would allow the simple use of namespace URI=schema URI,
but also be workable for people who want to provide other or different or
multiple related resources.