On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Eric Miller wrote:
> Can I suggest we focus the energy of this group for the next couple days in
> reviewing the alternative schemas which we think more accurately reflect
> the DCQ terms. I know of the following:
>
> 1) http://www.w3.org/2001/11/26/dcq
> 2) Roland, et.al. can you provide urls for your DCQ work?
>
> Its (in my opinion) not a consensus agreement that requires the entire
> board approval, but its generally good practice if more than one person
> reviews the schemas. Just look what happened last time :)
Eric,
this is fine as a WG activity...
It doesn't change the fact that there is no concensus in the WG that the
namespace URIs should resolve to RDF schemas.
It doesn't change the fact that we either don't have a process for
agreeing and publishing RDF schemas (or any other machine-readable
representation of our vocabularies) or that we are not sticking to the
process.
Until these things are sorted, we should still remove the current PURL
resolutions for the newer DCMI namespace URIs.
The process for publishing the machine-readable representation of our
vocabularies is as important, if not more so, as the process for
publishing any other DCMI recommendation.
Andy
--
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|