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

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: 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).

Correction. ( A lot of ).

I'm not interested in RDF, I'm not interested in XSD and I'm also not
interested in Namespaces.

The only thing I'm interested in is not getting yet another de-facto 
XML standard. 

Period.

I wish you re-read the thread from the begginnig ( when it 
was "simple question on namespaces"). Especially letters 
from Andrew  ( who is one of the authors  of Namespaces 
spec and as usual, as it happens when one of XML gods 
starts talking to us, mortals, his words are still most 
important part of the thread, I think. I'm not kidding. )

I don't want  to 'guard the golden dereferencing grail'. 
I don't think there is a holy grail at the end of 
namespace URI. 

I don't care if tomorrow W3C will decide that URI should 
point to RDF. I don't care is tomorrow W3C will decide 
that URI should point to XSD. 

I'l not use this binding anyway, because I don't 
use kinda similiar and existing DTD and XSL bindings 
which are already blessed by W3C.

I don't care if tomorrow Tim Bray's idea of catalogs 
will be blessed by W3C or if *any* other idea 
will be blessed by W3C.

All those games around URIs are orthogonal to my 
view on XML so I don't care about *any* solution W3C
will made on that binding.

I *do* care if such a descision ( whatever it will be ) will 
be performed  *not* by W3C and because current W3C wording 
allows such vendor-driven scenario I'm asking W3C to change 
the wording so that Tool X will not gonna happen. 

That's it. I've been in the hell of writing code for 
Windows 3.0 platform, I've been in the hell of writing 
code for Java 1.0 platform, I don't want another hell 
of writing code for vendor-driven SW and who drives 
XML DNS - drives the SW.

I can not say that W3C is producing ideal papers
or APIs, I can not say that W3C process is ideal, 
but sofar it is better comparing to  some big company 
driving the process.

What is not clear ?

I'm not looking for 'golden grail' of *any* kind. I'm 
too old for such a view on technology.

I just don't want to get into yet another hell of 
vendor-driven web, because it will be harder 
for me to compete with them. 

W3C as a competitor is much better than a 
big vendor as a competitor. Very simple.
 
> 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.

Exactly. Yes. It is about Namespaces and only about Namespaces. 
To be accurate it is about the neutral wording used by Namespaces 
spec explaning the semantics of the namespace name == URI.

My first letter that started this thread was with the Subject : 
"a simple question on 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"

.. Why ? It  is the core  question of the thread ...  My answer 
is :

I don't care how, but let say explicitely that that 'how' 
should come from W3C *only* 

> 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>

Yes, I understand that all of the W3C XML standards use XML 
namespaces. Good for them, I think that it is plain silly, but 

THIS HAS NO RELATION TO THIS THREAD ;-) We may 
start another holy war,  if you like.

I'l be very happy *not* to enter this "namespaces are good 
for you, and BTW - you can not  avoid them if using recent 
XML standards" . 

1. They are not good.
2. I can avoid them. Please don't ask me how can I do that. I can.
For example - not using recent XML standards ;-) Yes, all of them.

W3C decided to go with Namespaces. Good for them. 

This thread is not about Namespaces in general, but it is 
about 'neutral wording' of Namespaces specs which allows
de-facto binding of URIs driven *not* by W3C.

( I have a strange feeling that  I already wrote this thing .)

> 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.

When I say "I don't care" it usually means that "the issue you are 
pointing to is irrelevant to the point I'm making". I just use a bit shorter form.
Sorry if it is really disturbing. In my defence I should say that 
using caps instead of  reading the original thread could be 
considered disturbing as well. 
 
> 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...

Hell with RDF, XSD and Namespaces, but not let the 
big vendor to take control over the .com .net and .org 
domains. 

What is your point? Who are those "you, guys" ? 
We are all different here.

Officials of big companies need one set of things from W3C,  
officials of small companies need another set of things from 
W3C. Customers usually don't give a shit. 

I'm not talking about something being 'fair' or 'no fair' and 
I dont understand your logic at all. Really.  

Either W3C is The Law, or it is not. I see the broken law.
I'm  pointing to this law saying : "it is broken. Wanna another 
disaster, like it was with XSL in MS IE ?"

What could be  the reaction to my statement? 

Honestly - I don't care. 

I just know that the law is broken and it is now up to W3C to 
fix the hole or to leave it as it is now.

I think its is funny that *me* who came from the country where 
the law means "Just Nothing"  is trying to explain to *you* 
that "The Law" is not about 'fair' or 'no fair' .  Not at all.

> 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.

You said "innovation" ? I see a pattern here. ... 

Let me think ... I think I remember - there  is the company 
which is , you know ...  very innovative .... I hardly remember 
the name of that company,  and I hardly remember any innovation 
from that company ( usually they were producing 'improved version 2' 
of somebody's else innovation, like most of big comnanies do ) ,  
... I just remember the word "innovation" attached to the name of 
that company... PR and all that stuff.

Funny you use this word "inovation".  After that PR company 
I'm getting very strange feeling when I hear the word "innovation".
Especially when that "innovation" word is used as an excuse for 
abusing some law ( W3C specs are laws. Are they? )

Who tells developers not to innovate ? Me ???? What is the 
particular place in my posting which says that developers 
should not innovate ? 

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

Maybe my 10+ years experience is not typical, but all the situations 
in my life when people were talking too much about "team work"  
or "team spirit" usually resulted in stealing my money and/or 
ideas. 

I mean that when I hear about "working together" this also 
clicks on something ... not really good ...

Let us *work* . And then we'l see. That's the way I see it.

Rgds.Paul.

PS. 

By the way : "working together" implies opening W3C archives.

I hardly understand how can many people work together 
with some closed club which  pays no respect to the people 
who try to help. Oh, no -  not again ... I think *this*  topic has 
been discussed many times and I'd really *hate* this 
"how can we work together" to happen on XML-dev list again.

There are now at least 2 appropriate websites for bashing W3C, 
I suggest those who want to discuss all the beauty  of working 
together with W3C or together with MS or together with some 
other big organization are better to start those discussions in the 
appropriate place.