Isn't that why some have suggested dereferencing the namespace
to RDF or RDDL documents? In other words, there are those
pursuing solutions to this. The fact that the name might
serve a dual role (lexical disambiguation and named
location) seems to work. Why not?
len
From: james anderson [mailto:]
naming the set of symbols is meaningless. one has to name the
combinations. by which i do not mean the sequencing, dominance, and
lexical constraints one can express in a document definition.
a system which a-priori names the combinations according to the name
used to disambiguate one of the respective lexical tokens is going to
be a dead end.
what does one do with versions? with variations in authority? what does
one call it when it's a soap wrapper only, and a particular payload
only, and in combination only? etc.
