Lists Home |
Date Index |
>De : Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Envoyé : vendredi 18 janvier 2002 17:14
>À : Nicolas LEHUEN; 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'; 'Paul T'; 'Bullard, Claude
>L (Len)'; 'Leigh Dodds'; email@example.com
>Objet : Re: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)
>Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
>> That was ironic from you, but I'm quite convinced that it's
>50% of the
>> interest of RDDL, the remaining 50% being 25% to puzzle
>people and make
>> think that a namespace is something else than a pure URI,
>A namespace NAME is a URI. A namespace is not the same thing
>as its name.
>Are _you_ a string of characters?
Can we just suppose we are all adults with a moderate education in
mathematical formalisms (I graduated in mathematical engineering), and stop
blocking on such "details". I don't want to spend hours backing up my mails
with precise mathematical terms, unless I'm writing a math paper.
>> .. AKA a string of
>> characters (approximately) and 25% to effectively help
>people (but not
>> computers) to find information about a tag from a given
>> I can enter the namespace URI into Google and see where it can find
>> documentation for me, and that doesn't require the namespace
>URI to be an
>One could better argue that we have no need for RDF because we
>but so? But more to the point, RDDL allows the _owner of the
>DNS entry_ to serve as the authority regarding what resources
>with a namespace. RDDL (levaraging DNS and HTTP) is intended
>to serve as a
>way for _you_ to describe _your own_ namespaces, not as a way
>for someone to
>describe someone elses namespaces (which could be done in RDF).
Agreed, that was a dull point anyway.