On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Andy Powell wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Rachel Heery wrote:
>
> > What I am curious to explore is how the various schemas would be kept 'in
> > synch' in this scenario?? will they all have a separate DC Usage Board
> > 'approval and amendment' track? or will they all be derived from one
> > canonical schema??
> >
> > I would suggest the latter, that we need a canonical schema and this
> > would best be expressed in RDFS at present.
>
> Yes, fine... but that's not the issue is it? The issue is whether the
> namespace URI should point directly at the canonical schema or whether it
> should point to something else (RDDL) that points to the canonical schema?
>
> I think the namespace URI should resolve to something that provides human
> and machine-readable links to
>
> - the canaonical schema
> - other versions of the schema
> - human readable versions of the schema
>
> All of this could be done using hard-coded URLs :-( or via appropriate
> links to the registry :-). RDDL looks, to me, like a good candidate
> language for providing these linkages. Otherwise, how is someone going to
> get from the namespace URI to the registry?
How about brief human-readble 'welcome and table of contents' in XHTML
with the RDF Schema embedded in-line, alongside RDDL serving as a
machine-friendly table of contents pointing off to all the other goodies?
Dan
|