Dan Brickley <[log in to unmask]> 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:
Dan, could you elaborate -- I don't quite understand how this would work.
Would we be duplicating other organizations properties (like RSS) and move
them to our namespace, or would we simply endorse them (and provide schema,
etc. about them) but let them remain in another namespace?
What happens when we change an RDF schema? The RDFS spec says that we should
change the namespace URI also. Will we do this?
--
[ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|