[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] FW: Namespace management
[Forgot one!] <Quote> and you want to query on a URI - find the owner - description - purpose, etc, we can do that by having yet-another extrinsic type within Registry as a non-normative addendum. </Quote> Absolutely - an extrinsic type for a namespace identifier. Joe David RR Webber - XML ebusiness wrote: > > Matt, > > I think I touched a few live wires here! > > Yes - I intended to make people stop and > re-assess their thinking. > > But we're not talking about the same two things. > > From what I've seen of your use of namespaces - you > you them in an appropriate programmer-centric way > that delimits special purposed markup "families" within > a overall block of markup - (e.g. XQuery instructions > enbedded into content) and yes - writing code to > handle that is not tough. > > What I've seen elsewhere is the opposite arena - where > non-technical users believe that the only way to make > their markup functional is if they assign prefixes to everything. > > This is obviously a recipe for chaos - and in the US Gov > XML WGs meetings I've sat in - and where these requests > for namespace management are coming from - that is > what I see is part of the perception - that each department > within the USGov will own its own prefixes and use these > to label its own content. > > This IMHO will significantly impede interoperability > and deployment of agile information. Worse - if we > institutionalize this - then we will be making this whole > mindset part of the culture of "how" XML is done. > > Premise #1 in my book is that the LESS markup goes > into the exchange transaction structures the better > on all counts of ease of implementation, maintenance, > interoperabilty and reduction of content bloat. > > Do not confuse semantics with content. Keep the two > separate as much as possible. > > Now also look at some other down sides - if people > think they can own and manage namespace prefixes, > then you get into turf wars - but legally you cannot > "own" such things - this is just an invitation to lawyers > that I'd rather avoid - especially if this crosses over > from the government arena to the "wild". > > OK - nows lets look at the POSITIVES here. I reckon > that if we accept the following premises: > > 1) Namespaces used to denote special purpose > markup is an essential and needed mechanism, > such uses are driven off the URI - not the prefix! > > 2) Discovery of namespace usage as int 1). > > 3) Prefix-centric namespace thinking geared around > making names "unique" within a XML transaction > does not adequately solve eBusiness needs - > particularly not versioning of items, and not > context driven content. > > 4) People want to own prefixes and have the > registry manage and enforce content submission > rules for them. > > So - looking at items 1) & 2) - the Registry can ALREADY > handle these very nicely - if you just want to catalogue > these - so you know that someone already has a > toolset to handle XQuery say - and you want to > query on a URI - find the owner - description - purpose, > etc, we can do that by having yet-another extrinsic type > within Registry as a non-normative addendum. > > Items 3) and 4) I think we do want to wave a red flag > and point out to people that they need to re-think their > understanding of their use cases. > > OK - I stand guilt of trying to drive a CAM shaped nail > into every problem I see at the moment ; -) > > Please understand that I'm striving to make CAM > leverage the XML toolset world - NOT replace it! > > Especially I see that the role of ebXML generally > is to encourage best-practices and a clear ROI > roadmap for ebusiness - and so we should be > making it easier for end users to adopt and use > XML -and also ensuring that there are not ugly > ramifications longterm. > > Hope this now makes a lot more sense - and > clarifies the issues here. > > Thanks, DW. > ==================================================== > Message text written by Matthew MacKenzie > > > David, > > See inline. I see you are flogging the > CAM-redefines-XML-namespace-and-XML-Schema idea. > > :-) > > >I stressed the above to show how this is different. I guess I > >never bought into the premise from the W3C that > >you HAD to have a unique prefix on your XML, else > >it would not "work". I find this flawed, and further more > >users react badly when asked to add prefixes to tags, > >and mapping software reacts even worse when asked > >to manage and move content so labelled. > > > > Whoa! Are we debating the use of namespaces here? We were discussing a > "registry of namespaces", and certainly not a registry of namespace > prefixes, and even more certainly we were not discussing the > apropriateness of XML namespaces. > > The idea that every bit of XML is a member of a namespace is A Good > Thing. And if "mapping" software has a problem dealing with properly > namespaced XML, perhaps those mapping software vendors ought to make use > of one of the 15+ open source XML parsers, that can handle namespaces. > Hell, a few years ago I wrote a XML parser using regular expressions > that dealt with namespaces. Its not hard. I'd like to know why you > think namespaces are flawed. > <
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]