OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   Universal names vs context - was Re: [xml-dev] Schema fragments for ever

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


On Jan 31, 2004, at 8:58 AM, W. E. Perry wrote:

>
>> One way is to use a context-driven mechanism at runtime that 
>> "applies" the
>> proper set of elements according to the context of (in this case) 
>> country of
>> origin.
>
> he is, in fact, describing the only viable mechanism for producing 
> each locally
> required data structure, but I do not think that he understands how 
> that
> undercuts the very universal standardization of document forms which 
> he hopes
> to see promulgated by the UBL, or by any similar Babel project.
>

Sean McGrath makes a similar point in 
http://www.itworld.com/nl/ebiz_ent/03252003/
" XML doc-heads are very fond of addressing - as opposed to unique 
names - as a way of uniquely identifying things. Their cultural 
preference is a direct result, I believe, of the impossibility of 
allocating unique names for things in richly complex hierarchical 
structures. ...
In the relational database culture that many XML data-heads emanated 
from, unique naming was of paramount importance. With a record 
*everything* has a unique name. It simply must be so for the relational 
model to work. Records themselves have unique identifiers. Again, it 
simply must be so for the cultural ceremonies of normalization and 
joins and so on to function.
As often happens when cultures collide, friction resulted in the XML 
world over this issue"

Perhaps unlike Walter, I don't see this context-sensitive address (of 
the sort that XPath enables quite nicely) as the "only viable 
mechanism" -- there's a place for unique names of the RDBMS variety, 
but those tend to be in environments where something akin to the 
Académie française or an industry-wide nomenclature committee exists to 
enforce the standard naming conventions.   The namespaces spec is, of 
course, designed to enable this in a decentralized way, but so far I'm 
not seeing a lot of compelling evidence that it eliminates more 
confusion than it causes ... that's basically the point Sean is getting 
to in his article cited above.  Perhaps UBL will become the 
authoritative nomenclature in many real-world settings, but we shall 
have to see about that.

  In the wild, wild Web, or anywhere that there is no authoritative way 
of defining the names, taxonomies, ontologies, etc., I'd have to agree 
that context is the best guide to practical disambiguation.







 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS