--On 1/3/00 10:34 AM +0800 Simon Cox wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> Structured datatypes exist through "schemes", they always have.
> This is a very effective, scalable, modular place to put them.
> In general it is also very safe.
I disagree ;-)
Such data, that is a value conforming to an Encoding Scheme (eg URI)
should be considered an "atomic" value. No *further* *interoperability*
is *assumed* for this value (although you could). This means we are
happy for interoperability at the "URI level" (since we use a Scheme)
but we would not break that up into Protocol, Host, Port, Directory,
FileName elements (the structure) because it does not give us much
more in terms of interoperability.
However, what we are saying is that there are some qualifiers
(that represent stucture for an Element) that we believe should
be represented as structured elements (eg the CCP qualifiers)
since Name, Role etc are seen as good *interoperability* access
points.
The way forward for us is to allow for a Structured Qualifier
Principle then vote on all the proposals.
Cheers...Renato <http://purl.net/net/renato>
Principal Research Scientist, DSTC <http://www.dstc.edu.au>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|