[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray wrote:
>
> james anderson <james.anderson@setf.de> wrote:
> | Arjun Ray wrote:
>
> | could someone explain how the "generic vocabulary combination" problem
> | would be any different if the given initial logical document were encoded
> | as [...] that is, absent even the attribute-encoded identifiers introduced
> | in the xml-map example.
>
> No different. Exactly the same considerations apply.
i am heartened, that we agree, that the first examples concern the same problem.
> A name mapping is
> always necessary, between the arbitrary names an author could use and the
> "well-known" (or externally predefined) ones he may wind up using.
it appears that we do not agree, that the mechanisms which you describe would
in general be sufficient to address documents of the form of the last example.
> The
> single well-known vocabulary case is then merely an "identity mapping",
> which would need no explicit control information given a set of reasonable
> defaulting rules. Basically, use explicit control attributes only when
> you have to: the document instance as context determines how and to what
> extent.
>
> ...
>
> |> The interesting fact is that not only are colons or multi-part names not
> |> needed for this,
> |
> | then leave them out of the its discussion.
>
> I would, except that all too often colonification is catechistically
> trotted out as the "solution", when in fact it isn't.
namespaces are specified as a means to ensure that graph labels remain unique
under arbitrary graph combinations. the techiques you describe appear to be
intended to effect arbitrary graph relabeling. neither is sufficent for all cases.
...
|
