On 2009-12-15 10:43, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > > > I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in > > nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier space > > proves to fall short. > > There's an even better reason: to allow migration to new syntax (or new > namespaces) for each type of name. Consider: it's easier to start deployment > of a split in an existing namespace if both new namespaces have the same > syntax as the original one. It minimizes the number of things you have to > change, and also the cost of deployment, which makes it more likely you can > get a positive cost/benefit on the change - without which the deployment will > never happen. Once the split is more-or-less complete, then you can start to > think about changing the syntax, or having a new (parallel in function) > namespace.
Agreed. > > Or, at least, that's my theory - and I'm sticking to it! :-) > > > Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if we don't need a > > hierarchy from the start. > > Hierarchy in the names in the namespaces, or a hierarchy _of_ namespaces? > Sorry, wasn't quite clear from your brief comment. I was thinking about a hierarchy of namespaces, but in fact we probably need the generality to support hierarchical names too. I don't think that needs to make the simple case inefficient. Just make a couple of the basic data definitions recursive, and you've got both hierarchies. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
