Re: Catalog Requirements

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| At 14:27 2000 11 20 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
| >The interesting question is, what are we going to do about delegation?
| >Off the top of my head, I see a small conflict. Delegation makes sense
| >for public identifiers (as described in TR9401), but it also makes
| >sense for URNs, which could apply across categories. Hmmm....
| 
| I fear you're confusing things again when you appear to compare 
| public ids and URNs--you're comparing contextual function with data type.

That was the deep meaning buried in "Hmmm..." :-)

The problem is that URNs are hierarchical by design so delegation does
make sense in a data-type-wide sense. But maybe not for us.

| So think of the current DELEGATE entry type as meaning
| "delegate public ids" and realize that we could add entry types
| to "delegate system ids", "delegate namespace names", and so forth.

We could, but should we? Do we really want to deal with the complexity
of N different delegations? Maybe. I'm not sure it's a big deal, but
it looks complicated.

| But we should not consider "delegate URNs" any more than we should
| consider "map URIs" in an external entity identifer resolution catalog.

I agree, I just wonder if there's going to be some confusion.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@East.Sun.COM | Many who find the day too long, think life
XML Technology Center     | too short.--Charles Caleb Colton
Sun Microsystems, Inc.    |