Many thanks, Ray, for submitting this document. I had some thoughts
to share at the meeting that was cancelled, and will bring them up
tomorrow, but thought I'd share them first on the list to spark more
threaded discussion.
At 2007-03-08 11:09 -0500, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>I appologize if I'm not following procedures for properly submitting a
>document, but I haven't figured it out yet. Meanwhile I've attached a word
>document (I'm not even sure this listserv takes attachments but I've copied
>Ken too so he'll get it). If someone can point me to the procedures for
>submitting this properly I'll do it.
>
>Anyway, at the last call I agreed to write up my argument about XML
>namespace URIs; it's attached.
Having taught XML namespaces as part of my hands-on training classes,
I'm well aware of the distinctions made between identifiers and
locators, and you've done an excellent job in overviewing the issue,
your observations, and the historical debate.
It is unfortunate that being condescending is perceived when hearing
the argument that "well, the URI string syntax allows "http" it to be
used without needing to dereference it", when in fact I understand
this to be true.
I'm unfamiliar with the info: URI scheme so I appreciate the
information you've included.
I am familiar with the improper use of the "urn:" namespace,
particularly in the US government where I've seen the incorrectly use
of "urn:us:..." when "us" is not a registered namespace identifier
(as "oasis" is). Personally I'm a big user of the private
unregistered use of urn: as in my use of "urn:x-CraneSoftwrights" as
abstract pointers within documents such as RSS references (but not
outside of documents).
Reading your documented remarks on "Confusion and its repercussions"
I am not swayed. XML is a labeled hierarchy of information items,
and namespaces are used to create rich labels with global
uniqueness. Nothing more. The fact that people do not understand
this does not, in my opinion, invalidate its use. On the contrary,
the more that it is used properly the more others may learn to use it
properly. Avoiding its correct use does not propagate its correct use.
I feel your paper doesn't weigh in to the *benefits* of using an URI
that (1) takes advantage of existing ownership of domain names, and
(2) *happens* to be a URL that can be used for documentation and RDDL[1].
Regarding (1), if I wanted to use info: for a namespace then I have
to go to the effort of registering it, however today, without effort,
I can manage my own namespace URI strings if I choose the http syntax
and use the domain name I already own and is already globally unique.
Regarding (2), there is no obligation to have a URL for the URI, but
having an XHTML document at the URL for the URI opens up the
opportunity for additional features and benefits to help users
(especially users who don't understand that the URI is not a pointer
to a schema or any constraint definition) do resource discovery. I
see using XHTML/RDDL as a way to help users understand the role of a
URI that just happens to be a URL.
But I acknowledge your user experiences are different than my user experiences.
I'm really worried about going the "info:" route (is OASIS planning
to get an info registration? you mention info:xmlns/oasis which would
require two registrations and maintenance of the level below xmlns
... who would maintain that?), and I'm slightly worried about going
the "urn:oasis:" route because of lost opportunity, and I'm very
interested in trying the "http:" route with XHTML and RDDL as a
testing ground to measure the success of using the URL as a URI.
Though of course "testing" something that is being made permanent is
a really tough test ... once we make up our mind here for genericode
1.0 then I see us setting a precedent for genericode through its
lifetime ... but we really won't be able to measure its success until
we try it.
So, personally, I was seeing this as an opportunity to exercise the
specifications for which they were designed ... not avoiding a
non-technical issue (yes I know you've identified it as a usability
issue, but it isn't a technical issue in my opinion). We can
continue using the standards in the ways in which they are specified
to work which can help the community with examples of the proper ways
of using the specifications.
Given that each committee can have its own repository, I'm suggesting
we use something like:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/1.0/
as the namespace URI with an index.html at that directory in XHTML
with RDDL statements, copies of the schema files in that directory as
a central resource that anyone can point to, and any other
information in support of the base specification.
I understand we have polar opposite opinions on this with strong
feelings behind both and, as a committee, we have to find a way to
move forward. The two suggestions on the table so far to consider are:
info:xmlns/oasis/codelist
and
http://docs.oasis-open.org/codelist/ns/genericode/1.0/
Would other members of the committee please give your opinions and
other suggestions for consideration?
I hope this is perceived as a healthy debate, Ray, and not just as a
contrary opinion. Thank you very much for bringing forward your
ideas in such a detailed fashion.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken
[1] http://www.openhealth.org/RDDL/20040118/rddl-20040118.html
--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal