> I believe that through a careful agreement upon and application of
> definitions, we can get rid of most complaints about the namespaces
> proposal and remove all overlap between that proposal and things
> like architectural forms and XSchemas (under development).
If that's true, then that's GREAT!
However, I keep stumbling over a problem in my own mind. (Maybe it's
just too obvious for me to see it.) Using your defined terms, please
explain the usefulness and/or purpose -- in terms of how it furthers
the cause of reliable, vendor-neutral information interchange -- of
declaring that a real or conceptual object exists, in the absence of
any interchangeable definition of what that object is, or what
constraints it must conform to in order to be processable.
-Steve
-- Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc. srn@techno.com http://www.techno.com ftp.techno.comvoice: +1 972 231 4098 (at ISOGEN: +1 214 953 0004 x137) fax +1 972 994 0087 (at ISOGEN: +1 214 953 3152)
3615 Tanner Lane Richardson, Texas 75082-2618 USA