xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question (the novel)

[Lisa Rein <lisarein@finetuning.com>]

I'm just jumping in here to make an observation that I think it is
interesting that Uche "isn't interested in XML Schema", he just uses XML
Namespaces, and Now Paul "isn't interested in RDF"  he just wants XML
Namespaces to remain holy
(and to guard the golden dereferencing grail before it falls into the
wrong hands).

But I think everybody is missing a very important point that ALL OF
THESE TECHNOLOGIES USE XML NAMESPACES.  So of course the dereferencing
issues are relevant across ANY TECHNOLOGY USING XML NAMESPACES.

and that's why I feel, still, that we can't just hold some kind of a
moritorium on "how an XML Namespace URI value can be used to dereference
an actual document"

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:

> Really - I don't see what is related to the original topic of this thread.
> Are you talking about some RDF-based framework ?
> 
> By the way, why you are talking about RDF ? There is no word
> RDF in the namespaces doc, there is no sign that those URIs
> will point  to RDF e t.c. If you have discovered some way how to
> use Namespaces with RDF - I don't understand how it is relevant.
> document"..and then further clarify that "oh, it's ok for RDF, etc."

<lossofcool>
ALL OF THE W3C XML STANDARDS USE XML NAMESPACES.  WHAT PART OF THAT DO
YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?  ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ADD TO A LIST AT THE END OF THE
NAMESPACE SPEC EVERY TIME A NEW VOCABULARY COMES OUT OF THE W3C THAT XML
NAMESPACES APPLY TO?  TAKE IT AS A GIVEN.  YOU CAN COUNT ON IT.  DONE
DEAL.  SURE THING.  (JEEZ!)
</lossofcool>

This kind of attitude kinda frustrates me because it's really an
outdated perspective to just "not care" about other technologies that
aren't on your immediate radar in your own little corner of the web
world (especially when they really are on radar and you are just not
aware of it).  The whole point of the semantic web (and actually the
good old fashioned traditional web too) is to start connecting all this
stuff together and to eventually create systems to facilitate these
connections automatically.

We didn't jump topics when we started talking about how RDF might
dereference a document using XML Namespaces after the discussion about
how XML Schema might do the same.  We're still talking about connecting
instances of data models to their validating schemas -- be it XML, RDF
or whatever.

It would be one thing if you guys were saying "I don't understand how
XML Namespaces apply to these other technologies, let's all work
together and figure this out"  but what I'm hearing is "I only care
about my little corner of the XML Namespace world -- to hell with
everything else -- but don't you go implementing any of this stuff too
successfully, too quickly or it's "no fair"...foul ball...

All this schema stuff is so experimental, we really need a collaborative
free-for-all for a while to figure out how to do things.  Telling
developers not to innovate until a standard materializes that might
never actually materialize (and in fact has not even been started yet!) 
isn't gonna fly.

This stuff has to work together to do anything useful.  We're all in
this together man :-)

lisa