The main reason why the LOM Base Schema did not adopt "x-none" approach
is that, as a "conceptual model", it tries to avoid XML/RDF centric
constructs...
Now that the XML binding is entering ballot, and as the RDF binding is
progressing (thanks, Mikael!), we are deciding on the best way to
express the binding independent notions of LOM in XML/RDF.
Erik Duval
---
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~erikd
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Architecture Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Mikael Nilsson
Sent: 13 March 2003 22:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Proposed DCMI RDF Schema Changes
On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 10:41, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> I think you mean "x-none"
>
I'm afraid not. '"none" shall also be an acceptable value' (IEEE LOM,
page 11).
IIRC, the original proposal we made to IMS said x-none for full
compatibility with RFC3066, but LOM for some reason chose not to use
this.
/Mikael
> Phil.
>
> --
> Phil Barker Learning Technology Advisor
> ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
> Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
> Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
> Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
> Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|