 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Tue Oct 30 19:33 MET 2001 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:33:21 -0500 > From: "Wagner,Harry" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: [POLL] What is at the end of the namespace? > To: [log in to unmask] > > Hi Tod, > One of the functional requirements of the registry application is to output > the DC terms as schemas encoded in various metadata standards (currently RDF > and XML). > That's it. > The registry application itself is not dependent on what is at the end of > the DC namespaces. This is an architecture issue which I do not believe has > any effect on the registry. Exactly! The management of the vocabulary as such is a non-issue. The choice of namespace URI's has been made. Which part of DC vocabulary it attributed to which namespace is no longer under discussion. In particular one can code DC(Q) in RDF/XML with proper namespace references for the individual properties and classes. Cheers rs > > Hope this helps. > > Regards, > Harry > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tod Matola [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:23 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [POLL] What is at the end of the namespace? > > > Rachel Heery wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > > > > > >>It's a good practice, IMO, and I see no reason to stop. If you > >>want to argue that we should, take it to some W3C list, not the > >>Dublin Core itself. > >> > > > > > > I do think the issue of how to manage the DC namespaces and vocabulary > > is a matter for this list ...?? > > I thought it was the job of this list to debate the possible candidates > and return a recommandation. Which may or may not be acted on by other > parts of DCMI. > > > > and I am curious as to how we could sensibly > > manage resolution of the three Dublin Core namespaces by means of RDDL > > in a way that enables terms identified by all three to be related. > > > > So are you suggesting we dereference the namespace to a Registry query? > > I think the RDDL suggestion isn't intended to be a the end all solution > (w.r.t. management of the namespaces), but rather a step in the right > direction. > > Are the current proposed management systems (e.g., DCMI registry) being > designed with RDFS as an assumption or will they support: DTDs, XML > schema, XHTML modules,..., <insert future sematic markup schema du > jour>? As Partick points out the namespace URI is not a 1-1 mapping of > the encoding and RDDL gives a little bit of wiggle room. > > Cheers Tod > > -- > Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls. >