• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 04:21:14 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@b...>
• References: <3ED5B096.9080102@t...> <3ED6062E.4080403@b...> <014f01c326ba$5d609890$b6f5d3ce@L565> <3ED860C6.5060207@d...> <3ED8C926.93C26E7F@b...> <3ED8D0B8.DCCE9F9C@f...> <3ED8E030.DEC3C2ED@b...> <3ED8E195.E5BE14EB@b...> <3ED8E9AE.92D6BB4@f...> <3ED8EF7A.E4AE9A12@b...> <3ED8F5D7.26216A0F@f...> <3ED96568.1B67FF80@b...> <28pidv0jqhmue4hfn6ff16o0tf1ldjnbh1@4...> <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@b...>

"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...> wrote:

|> in any document using the a1 vocabulary, how can "StateCode" in the
|> sense of the a2 vocabulary be used?  Well, just use it!

| If the 2 schemas (agency 1 and agency 2) shared the same namespace
| (perhaps an overall "superagency" namespace), then name collision would
| occur. 

Only if (a) the combined schema insisted on using the same names as is
*and* (b) insisted on "GI only" as the only basis for discrimination.

To enable (a), one has merely to abandon (b).  It's a fallacy anyway
(deriving from the more basic fallacy that vocabulary specific names must
somehow always occur in syntactically visible positions.)

• Next by Date: Re: latest on IE
• Next by thread: Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread