Namespaces: do namespaces need to be divided up in groups?

[OnnoPaap]

We made a namespace per type of data.

Code: Select all

     xmlns:p7tm="http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-8/ed-1/tech/reference-data/template-model#"
     xmlns:p7tpl="http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-8/ed-1/tech/reference-data/templates#"
     xmlns:dm="http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-8/ed-1/tech/reference-data/data-model#"
     xmlns:meta="http://standards.iso.org/iso/ts/15926/-8/ed-1/tech/reference-data/metadata#"

Many other namespaces could follow: OIMs, federation facades, etc.

A namespace URI is related to an endpoint address. The endpoints are divided up per owner.

If we look at ownership, there could be less namespaces. E.g. just one for the RDL + base/core templates + metadata + OIMs (specialized templates).

If we look at type of data, and potentially different owners for any kind of reason, there should be many more namespaces.

Do we want to condense the number of namespaces to known ownership, or do we want to divide data up in as many namespaces as possible, so per data group?

[HansTeijgeler]

Divide as per Part 8 attached, normative, files
Hans

[vvagr]

A namespace URI is related to an endpoint address.

It is not necessary, complex systems of local and on-line cashing can blur this relationship. Therefore it is useful to have separate namespaces per type of data as additional instrument to manage the complexity.

[KeithWillshaw]

A namespace URI is related to an endpoint address.

It is not necessary, complex systems of local and on-line cashing can blur this relationship. Therefore it is useful to have separate namespaces per type of data as additional instrument to manage the complexity.

I agree, having separate namespaces is clearer and easier to manage.

Keith