On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, Tod Matola wrote:
> > I'd caution against versioning the vocabulary constructs in this way, and
> > instead think about versioning the DCMI Endorsement of the named
> > vocabulary constructs. It's a slippery point perhaps... "1.0" means "This
> > works for us", where this is a collection of named qualifiers whose URIs
> > don't concern us.
> > The notion of changing URIs every time we announce something new about our
> > attitude to something doesn't work well for inter-Initiative
> > collaboration. For example: [...]
> Great. Point taken.
> Can we propose how to live with a numbered elements namespace and unnumbered
> qualifier and type space?
I think we can live with that. The main 15 are a different kind of thing
to qualifiers of various kinds.
> Should we just declare a do-over and say we want to take
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ back?
My personal bias would be to have stuck with the old identifier for the
15, but it's far too late to roll back now. 1.1 (and lower case) it is.
> Do we want to just leave it as is and fork? So
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1 and
I believe we agree not to numerically version these by batch. The
precise way we represent these constructs is I believe a matter for
Dated-URIs can work well as a way of leaving our options open later, so
I wouldn't role those out as a mechanism for generating arbitrary but