[MOBY-l] Policy on the use of prefix 'moby'?

[Gabriel Berriz]

At 12:27 PM 4/13/2004 -0700, Ken Steube wrote:
> > names like "Integer" and "Object" seem like likely candidates for
> > namespace collisions.
>
>I'm not sure, but in the case of MOBY are these tags really are candidates
>for collisions?
>
>These blocks of XML like <Object...> and <Integer...> come from the MOBY
>data ontology and so there is exactly one precise meaning for these tags.
>One reason for having a MOBY ontology is to give specific meanings to
>these tags and to give an exact specification on what the XML should look
>like.  So I think there's no room for conflicts.

Hi Ken,

The problem I see is not with the choice of terms Object, Integer, etc. (I 
think they are perfectly fine), but rather with not specifying that these 
terms belong to the MOBY namespace (either via a prefix bound to it, or by 
setting the enclosing default namespace to it).

One scenario that would introduce collisions (if Object, Integer, etc. were 
left out in the clear) would be a MOBY service that served chunks of XML 
from various sources (other than MOBY), or alternatively, an application 
that embedded MOBY-generated XML within other XML.

Even in these cases, all would probably be OK if MOBY were the only source 
of XML that used unqualified keywords.  In this case one could say that 
MOBY's namespace is effectively the "null" namespace.  But I think that if 
all goes well, MOBY-generated XML will find itself rubbing shoulders with 
XML that uses unqualified keywords. :-)

BTW, of the keywords I've seen, I think my top candidate for collisions is 
not Object or Integer but id.

G.