Paul wrote, in part:
| >Okay. We do need URI>URI mapping, though. Let's imagine it
| >happens through (some piece of some processor) consulting another
| >map. (If anyone wants references to previous URN-WG work on
| >such maps, let me know.)
|
| Careful that you don't mix layers. Without getting into the
| discussion of whether URI>URI mapping is good or bad, it is
| not part of XML entity management and does not belong mixed
| in with an entity management catalog.
I don't believe I am mixing layers; I believe that the contextual
semantics (e.g., SYSTEM vs PUBLIC vs ENTITY) of the socat are obsolete
and that the 2 mapping problems are at exactly the same layer. But I
accept your argument that URI>URI mapping is out of scope for
this TC, so I won't press the point. But I do have to make
some progress in understanding how to do both.
| >What piece of what processor would we like it to be, and should
| >the mapping be done before or after the xmlcat is consulted,
| >or both? and should the two items (URI map and xmlcat) be
| >consulted by the XML processor or by some new, specialized
| >processor that feeds its results into the XML processor?
| >
| >or something else?
|
| I believe this is seriously out of scope for this TC. Talk
| to Norm about the W3C URI IG he is chairing (fool that he is),
URI work of course belongs in the IETF, but that's another matter.
| but URI>URI mapping (as interesting a topic as it is) is
| orthogonal to entity management as defined by TR9401 and the
| charter of this TC.
Fine, I'm just soliciting opinion. Do you have one on the
question I raised?
regards, Terry
