 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Tue Aug 13 10:40 MET 2002 > RDF-XML: <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description > about=""> <dc:publisher> UKOLN - University of Bath </dc:publisher> > </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> > DC.Publisher: UKOLN - University of Bath > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:29:34 +0100 > From: Andy Powell <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Registry Update > Comments: To: A mailing list for the group discussing registration of > qualifiers to the D <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Wagner,Harry wrote: > > > Pete, > > > > > I might be going wrong here, but (unless I am experiencing some effect > > > of cacheing somewhere) I don't think this _does_ get me the RDF schemas > > > which have been indexed by the registry. > > > > You are correct. The registry is based on RDF data, but not a particular > > schema. It's not ideal, but is better than loading schemas with known > > problems, and the data does represent the UB decisions. > > > > What is loaded in the registry is much closer to Roland's version (with a > > few additions, i.e., the new date qualifiers) than to what the namespaces > > resolve to. > > Please, please, please... can we remove the incorrect RDF schemas that the > namespace URIs resolve to. Incorrect data is *worse* than no data - and > much more confusing. > > It is totally crazy Nice wording. > to have released > > http://dublincore.org/usage/terms/dc/current-elements/ > > but to have left an incorrect schema at > > http://purl.org/dc/terms/ > Maybe there is something special with theses files ? rs