This feels like progress...
Aaron wrote:
>I'd be perfectly happy with:
>
>http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
>http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>http://purl.org/dc/type/
This looks good to me (and Andy agrees).
If I understand Carl's concerns, I imagine he finds nothing wrong in
principle with the latter two and objects only to that extra namespace
for the "legacy fifteen".
I'd be perfectly happy folding those legacy elements into
"http://purl.org/dc/terms" -- which I believe would satisfy Carl's
requirement for conceptual consistency -- but Dan and others have
vigorously objected to this.
Alternatively, Carl suggests we maintain the legacy namespace with the
version number, but map its elements (redundantly) to a new
non-versioned namespace URI, so that those 15 elements would have two
valid namespace URIs. Aaron thinks this would cause unnecessary pain
because many tools only understand the older namespace.
At any rate, it would seem we agree on (something like):
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
http://purl.org/dc/type/
...and are now down to discussing three options:
1) keep "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" because lots of people are
using it, and changing it would hurt;
2) deprecate "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" and fold it into
"http://purl.org/dc/terms/" because that is conceptually the right
thing to do; or
3) keep "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" but map its elements redundantly
to the namespace "http://purl.org/dc/terms/".
Is the summary correct?
Tom
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
GMD Library
Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619
|