On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Renato Iannella wrote:
> I'm happy to see DC as the "short-hand" - but as you say, it should not
> _really_ matter. Of greater concern is the URI used to uniquely
> identify the DC metadata.
>
> I have a personal preference for http://metadata.net/DC/1.0/ ;-)
Can you clarify what RDF expects there to be at the namespace URL, in
terms of what data is there? does there have to be anything there in
reality? Is this URL just a label, or is the implication that there is
some sort of machine readable DC definition there? Of course I can see it
would be useful if there was something there, particularly if human
readable, but does there have to be?
If we use this same convention for DC:scheme (i.e. state the namespace
for the scheme by URL) will there be valid URL's for all the schemes DC
implementors want to use? in other words can all the schemes we might want
to use be valid namespaces.
Maybe I need to go back and re-read those definitions of namespace :-(
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery, Research Group Co-ordinator
UKOLN (UK Office for Library and Information Networking)
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|