[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: XML DEV <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Looking for an example of a name colliision
- From: Arjun Ray <aray@nyct.net>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 04:21:14 +0000
- In-reply-to: <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@bah.com>
- References: <3ED5B096.9080102@textuality.com> <3ED6062E.4080403@bitworking.org> <014f01c326ba$5d609890$b6f5d3ce@L565> <3ED860C6.5060207@dehora.net> <3ED8C926.93C26E7F@bah.com> <3ED8D0B8.DCCE9F9C@fiduciary.com> <3ED8E030.DEC3C2ED@bah.com> <3ED8E195.E5BE14EB@bah.com> <3ED8E9AE.92D6BB4@fiduciary.com> <3ED8EF7A.E4AE9A12@bah.com> <3ED8F5D7.26216A0F@fiduciary.com> <3ED96568.1B67FF80@bah.com> <28pidv0jqhmue4hfn6ff16o0tf1ldjnbh1@4ax.com> <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@bah.com>
"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com> wrote:
|> in any document using the a1 vocabulary, how can "StateCode" in the
|> sense of the a2 vocabulary be used? Well, just use it!
| If the 2 schemas (agency 1 and agency 2) shared the same namespace
| (perhaps an overall "superagency" namespace), then name collision would
| occur.
Only if (a) the combined schema insisted on using the same names as is
*and* (b) insisted on "GI only" as the only basis for discrimination.
To enable (a), one has merely to abandon (b). It's a fallacy anyway
(deriving from the more basic fallacy that vocabulary specific names must
somehow always occur in syntactically visible positions.)
|
