[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<Quote1>
How do you mean 'semantically correct'?
</Quote1>
I think "semantically clear" would have been a better choice of words. I
have seen the term "prefix" used more often than "title" for this
information. However, I also fully realize that it is subjective, and
that I am speaking only of the cases that I personally have seen. So
perhaps my comment was more subjective than objective.
<Quote2>
The point is that in the markup of the example as given there is no
collision of the various appearances of 'title', as Bill de hÓra has
already illustrated by parsing those appearances into the clearly
distinct
</Quote2>
Absolutely. However, my references were to the use of namespaces to
between vocabularies, not within the same vocabulary. So I was
referencing cases where one may want/need to combine multiple
vocabularies in the same document.
<Quote3>
I still fail to see how, for instance, what you consider your best
illustration--"StateCode"--might be used in a markup document (the only
scope within which the alleged collision might be in evidence) in ways
which could not be resolved through precisely the same analysis
that Bill de hÓra has applied to 'title'.
</Quote3>
By 2 different federal agencies using the element name "StateCode" in 2
different ways. The 2 agencies do not collaborate on their element
names, so they cannot agree to use 2 different names. Or, even if they
did collaborate, there may be a very good reason to use the same element
name for these 2 different contexts.
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
"W. E. Perry" wrote:
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote [rearranged here]:
>
> > In my opinion, The more semantically correct attribute name for the "title"
> > attribute of the "author" element would be "prefix", not "title". So (with all due
> > respect to the author of this example), I personally don't believe that this is the
> > best example to illustrate the concepts.
>
> I'm sorry; I don't understand this at all. How do you mean 'semantically correct'? Do
> you mean by reference to some universal naming scheme (and the semantics which you
> then elaborate from instances of that scheme) rather than by reference to the text of
> the instance markup document, as given? But this is XML, where 1) the scope of names
> is the document and 2) the document author's choice of names, or of any other markup
> conformant to the syntactic specification of XML, is the given with which you are
> obliged to work. The point is that in the markup of the example as given there is no
> collision of the various appearances of 'title', as Bill de hÓra has already
> illustrated by parsing those appearances into the clearly distinct
>
> /section/title
> /section/signing/author@title
> /section/signing/book@title
>
> Now, granted that this document instance might be a poor example, I still fail to see
> how, for instance, what you consider your best illustration--"StateCode"--might be
> used in a markup document (the only scope within which the alleged collision might be
> in evidence) in ways which could not be resolved through precisely the same analysis
> that Bill de hÓra has applied to 'title'.
>
> > An additional thought:
> >
> > If one did use the attribute "title" as below, in a schema, of course the
> > declaration of the attribute as used with the "author" element could be a local
> > declaration (perhaps with enumerated values such as "Mr", etc.) while the "title"
> > attribute used with book could be a global declaration (or vice-versa, or both could
> > be local).
>
> But, again, the scope of names in XML is by definition the document, so however one
> might schematize a global versus a local use of a given term, any alleged collision of
> those names would have to be demonstrated within the scope of a single document where
> they occurred together. I assume that you mean your schema to be considered *as a
> schema*, rather than as simply an XML document in its own right (where there would be
> no collision of isonyms not resolvable by the parsing which Bill de hÓra
> demonstrates). You further appear to intend that because you have cast that particular
> XML document as a schema that it might therefore declare universal usage of particular
> names, though that is an enormous concession that neither I nor any other user of XML
> markup is obliged to grant you, and is in any case an entirely separate question from
> whether there is in fact some identifiable name collision within the scope of an XML
> document, whether demonstrated by the Namespaces Rec example or by some other example
> which you might furnish.
>
> > So one could consider each "title" attribute as being used in a different context
> > within the same vocabulary - in the context of a person, and in the context of a
> > book.
>
> No. The specific premise at instance here is that putatively colliding names are used
> within the same context--that of the document, which is by definition the scope of XML
> names.
>
> > Alternatively, the attributes could be named "PersonalTitle" and "BookTitle".
>
> Name them what you please, but if you are to respond to Bill de hÓra's query you must
> them demonstrate that, whatever you have named them, those names collide within the
> scope of a document.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Walter Perry
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
