[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wednesday 23 January 2002 05:39 pm, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> Notice that the word "domain" was not mentioned in the above
> paragraph. That's because a namespace does not identify a domain. It
> is merely (strictly speaking) a disambiguation device. It has no
> meaning *by definition*. Now, others may want to add meaning to it,
> and they're free to do so (if they can stand the consequent heat).
Bingo. Namespaces are a form of alpha-renaming, and little else.
> "this is my domain; it's name is __; it's description is ___"
> "these are the namespaces in my domain"
> "this is the schema(s) that defines the entities in my domain"
> "these are the schemas that define domain spans, but are not domains
> of themselves"
Right... this is essentially setting the interpretation context.
Another way to do this is to build/package the knowledge into the
document/product you deliver.
For example, I most likely would enjoy your documents, but couldn't
care less about your domain of expertise (unless I was a printer). As
such, I expect you to produce things that I can process in *my*
domain, and we have an implicit agreement on how I am to interpret the
documents you produce. If we *don't* have an agreement, you either
need some way of hard-coding the interpretation, or we shouldn't even
talk.
|
