I tried that one on AI experts some years ago. Every
place I wrote IS-A on the chart, they replaced it
with HAS-A. The notion that the semantic GI IS-A Type
doesn't seem to be well-accepted outside the XML
community. There may be something to what Steve
says and namespace disambiguation points that out
simply because you need a redirection. It's just a
name as far as XML is concerned. We end up having
to build a lot of infrastructure to make IS-A work
and that means we are narrowing the options of
XML.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:]
It is not a simple fact at least if we are still talking about XML. XML 1.0
says that the _type_ of an element is its name or GI. Generally the 'type
attribute' has a special place in the list of 'attributes', i.e. the "isa"
link. So, not (element has-a GI) rather (element isa GI). The value, to me,
of the namespace URI is that the "isa" link can traverse the web, which I
find useful. I have no opinion about alpha-renaming, or how you might use
that to traverse the web. In any case it is not typical to equate "isa" and
"has-a" links and I suspect that if you do so, you will lose processing
capabilities.
