[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Re: RDDL: new natures
- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:38:31 +0000
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> What I *don't* want to say is that <http://example.org/foo.xsd> is a
> member of the XML Schema namespace. Using
> <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema> as the URI for the nature of "XML
> Schema" creates this ambiguity for ***software agents***. I understand
> that you, Elliotte, being an intelligent human being can distinguish
> this contextual difference, but the type of logic that you are using to
> do this is actually rather complicated. This is admittedly a technical
> issue, but as far as I can see a real one.
And doesn't a sofware agent have enough context to disambiguate this
usage, i.e that a xlink:role on a rddl:resource indicates that the
associated resource has a type of http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema?
In other words, shouldn't the agent conform to the spec?
Using the namespace uri as the nature of the resource is a handy
as it avoids any prior co-ordination to agree on the URIs. Otherwise
the RDDL spec will need to assign well-known URIs, or community
will have to agree on its URIs; both of which seem to offer
opportunities for "URI aliasing" which will surely cause *greater*
confusion for software agents.
Cheers,
L.
--
Home: http://www.ldodds.com | "Simplicity is the ultimate
Blog: http://www.ldodds.com/blog | sophistication" -- Leonardo da Vinci
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]