At 04:55 PM 8/15/2001 -0400, Wagner,Harry wrote:
>Eric,
>Couldn't we satisfy Stu's versioning requirement by adding a new property
>(i.e., version) to the eor schema?
>
>Regards,
>Harry
Hi Harry. Can you clarify what actually is suggested being versioned? Is it
the Schema or Terms in the Schema. Either way, simply associating a
"version" property with this will be very confusing in the long term
management of either of these resources.
Take the following example to ground this point...
the description associated with the resource
http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dcq is as follows:
<eor:Schema rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13-dcq#">
<rdf:value>The Dublin Core Element Set Qualifier Vocabulary</rdf:value>
<dc:title>The Dublin Core Element Set Qualifier Vocabulary</dc:title>
<dc:publisher>The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative</dc:publisher>
<dc:description>The Dublin Core Element Set Qualifier Vocabulary is an
richer vocabulary intended to facilitate discovery of
resources.</dc:description>
<dc:language>English</dc:language>
<dc:date>2000-07-11</dc:date>
</eor:Schema>
and another resource http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13-dcq#alternative
<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13-dcq#alternative">
<rdfs:label>Alternative</rdfs:label>
<rdfs:comment>Any form of the title used as a substitute or alternative
to the formal title of the resource.</rdfs:comment>
<rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title" />
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13-dcq#" />
</rdf:Property>
is the suggesting simply a version number to each of these resources?
<eor:version>1</eor:version>
If this is the case, how is one expected to get access to a previous
version of anything? If some software vendor says they support the Schema
defined by http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13/dcq or a specific property such
as http://dublincore.org/2000/03/13-dcq#alternative in their application
and either of these change, how would they know? Asking them to understand
a property in a namespace their unfamiliar with (e.g. eor) seems like a
extremely high burden to place on application developers.
It seems fine for DCMI to suggest simply and clearly (in some DCMI REC)
that there is a policy for all namespaces that these can be modified such
that in the case that minor changes do not (a) change the meaning or
validity of existing documents written using the namespace, or (b) affect
the operation of existing software written to process such documents.
However if (a) or (b) is not met than a new namespace will be used.
The following also may be helpful in helping shape such a policy:
http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri
DCMI *may* consider adding some additional eor properties such as
"deprecatedInPlaceOf" or something to help define the relationship between
the old and new
.../2000/03/13-dcq#alternative eor:depinplaceof
.../2004/04/23-dcq#alternativeTitle
but frankly I wouldn't suggest spending a whole bunch of additional time on
this now. It seems that there are other more important objectives to
address.
--
eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead mailto:[log in to unmask]
w3c world wide web consortium tel:1.614.763.1100
200 technology square, ne43-350 fax:1.208.330.5213
cambridge, ma 02139 usa
|