Quoting "Wagner,Harry" <[log in to unmask]>:
> I disagree. It's not more work - just different work. With the HTTP
> approach you still have to implement code to process the HTTP request. If
> you want to take advantage of rdfs:seeAlso/rdfs:isDefinedBy relations then
> you need to parse the data sent back (after creating a model from the
> serialized version). Your assertion that the data is not available to tools
> is not accurate. The data is available. Tool developers simply need to
> follow the protocol.
[snip]
> Perhaps so, from a broader metadata perspective. Non-English versions of
> the schemas are not available on the DCMI Web site (however, there are
> numerous links to translations).
No, they _are_ available: as you described in the previous message, I can use
a query (or a number of queries) through the SOAP registry API to access the
data. But they not available by a simple HTTP GET in a REST-ful way, so....
> This is a DCMI policy decision, not a
> registry decision.
... yes, on this point I think I agree with you.
And I'm arguing that a policy that says that a user who needs a non-en-US
representation of the same resource must use a different protocol, when (it
seems to me) there's no technical reason to insist on that (assuming we can
resolve the issues of clarifying what our identifiers refer to, as Andy, Tom
and Roland are discussing), seems slightly odd when we are committed to support
for internationalisation (and the human-readable HTML interface to the registry
has such good support for non-en-US users).
But I can see the policy makers have joined the discussion so I'll stop bending
your ear! ;-)
Pete
|