Ann Apps <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> http://purl.org/dc/type/
>> Again, the name of the DCMI Type vocabulary is DCMIType, therefore
>> http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
>> is better here, despite the apparent redundancy?
> I agree that 'dcmitype' is better than 'type'.
>
> However, I am wondering why there is a specific namespace for
> 'type'. Is it likely that there will be other DCMI vocabularies? If so
> would each have their own namespace? Or should the namespace
> cover all of them and be something like?:
The DCMI decided to release it as a separate vocabulary, so I think it is
only right to put it in a separate namespace.
--
[ Aaron Swartz | [log in to unmask] | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
|