Karen:
It's a quick fix. Once you change the name, the system will prompt you
to change the URI, and when you say "yes" it will do that and keep track
that you've done so.
Yes, well, we changed the schema side to textual from numeric because we
were criticized for that early on. Can't please everybody, I guess ...
:-)
Same with roles--we had some discussion about it (which I thought you'd
been involved in but perhaps not) and felt it would be clearer if they
were separated. I still think so, actually, but there you are--another
six of one, half dozen of another kind of decision.
Diane
Karen Coyle wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Alistair Miles
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, but I expect all property names to start with a lower case
>> character -- this is a minor issue in the RDA elements vocab, the
>> property URI just needs changing from .../Publisher to .../publisher.
>>
>>
>
> I'll fix that, but I need to know (from Diane or Jon) if I can change
> the record "in place" or need to delete and re-create. The question is
> whether the versioning will work if I change the identifier.
>
> BTW, this is an illustration of why it might be best to use
> non-textual identifiers. The decision was made to include the name of
> the element in the URI, but it makes me uneasy. (I also would like the
> RDA roles and elements to be in the same element list... the way it is
> I think we proliferate the confusion about the roles and what they
> mean. But for the moment we probably need to keep track of them
> separately since RDA does.)
>
> kc
>
|