Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.

[Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>]

Tim Bray wrote:

> >2) The namespaces spec reinforces (1) by providing technology that
> >allows people to make element type names be universally unique.
> 
> Once again, that's just its *name*.  You can apply all sorts
> of context-sensitive processing, so that you process two things
> that have the same name quite differently.

What confuses me about all of this is that, if you don't tie a name in a
namespace to a single semantic concept -- which people seem loathe to do
-- what is the point of having namespaces? That is, if a URI + local
name can identify two different concepts, why did we add the URI?

In other words, what's the difference between me using the same element
type name to mean two different concepts and me and somebody else using
the same element type name to mean two different concepts?

I would also point out that context-sensitive processing is different
from whether a name denotes a single semantic concept. Just because a
<Date> element in one context causes you to ship a product and in
another context causes you to send a dunning notice doesn't mean that
the underlying concept is different.

> HMMMMM... is part of the problem here the heavy overloading
> of the word "type"? -Tim

Undoubtedly.

-- Ron