Lists Home |
Date Index |
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Norm Walsh writes;
>>I see two central arguments in this piece:
>>1. Globally unique names aren't necessary. The context is, in
>>practice, always well known. It follows that it's not a problem that
>>your <forsale> for a distributed ebay application and my <forsale> for
>>a distributed real estate application mean entirely different things.
>>You're not really going to point your bidder at my files and I'm not
>>going to point my real-estate searcher at your files.
> I'm very confused about how you see this as an argument in the piece.
> The article doesn't so much as mention namespaces. All it says (in my
> reading) is that putting XML up on the Web is interesting and useful.
> Did you read:
> Or did you click through to something else?
I merely dropped the namespaces from the examples to
make them simpler and hopefully easier to read.
>>Similarly, the semantics of a vocabulary are always known to the users
>>of the vocabulary and there's no benefit in associating semantics in
>>an independent, programmatic way. And really, if I wanted to
>>communicate the semantics of <forsale> and <bid>, I could do it by
>>You may be right.
>>But what's preventing you from implementing this vision today? No one
>>says you must use namespaces. No one says you must use any technology
>>you don't want to.
> The writer makes clear that he doesn't want to use RDF, but apart from
> the fact that he doesn't use namespaces in his his examples, I don't
> think he makes the complaint you suggest.
I wrested with putting namespaces into the examples, but left
them out to make the examples as simple as possible. If I were
to really start implementing this system I would put
the elements into a namespace, and use other namespaces
as appropriate for other elements.
>>Now, if you're developing a technology that you want to interoperate
>>with other technologies that have adopted namespaces for global name
>>disambiguation and RDF for describing semantic relationships, I might
>>encourage you to use those technologies as well. I might even express
>>the opinion that I think you should.
>>I think there are significant benefits (engineering, training, etc.)
>>in reusing technologies. Even technologies that aren't exactly the way
>>I'd like them to be.
> I don't see any place in this document that argues otherwise. The
> strongest thing claim I see here is that XML 1.0 is useful stuff when
> put on the Web.
My point in writing the essay was that re-using existing
technologies is a good thing. I tried to show by example
that you can get significant mileage out of XML and HTTP alone.
The idea being that I don't need to wait around for
the Semantic Web to implement the scenarios that Paul Ford
proposed in his essay.
> Maybe Joe will have some better answers to your questions.
Hopefully I did :)