> (ii) we have an inline RDF Schema, making the namespace
> description accessible directly by software tools, eg. the
> Schema-aware MacOS X editor screenshot'd at [...]
Although I feel sick disagreeing with DanBri, I'm going to have to do so...
I don't think that embedding XML RDF in HTML is as good a solution for the
Dublin Core namespace as RDDL.
HTML was built as a specifically document-oriented format. As people
realised that they might want to embed metadata, or link to metadata, the
set of <meta> and <link> elements were added. Obviously, these aren't good
enough - for a start, XHTML should be using XLink and so forth - but
extensions like RDDL provide an adequate functionality. The point of RDDL
is not that it replaces the XML RDF, but that it is a catalogue for the XML
RDF and any other schemata that you need to have linked; and not only that,
but a machine readable format.
Using RDDL gives one the power to link to various serializations of RDF -
not just XML RDF. Many people already prefer Notation3 or NTriples for
example, and by the time "RDF 2.0" comes out, you'll be updating the
namespace again. Don't bother: put up a RDDL document, and update it as
fashion dictates.
It is a common misunderstanding amongst novice developers that the
namespace URI has to have some explicit documentation about the terms
within the namespace. From an RDF point of view, this is utter nonsesnse:
for a start, namespaces don't even exist in RDF! The information can be
placed anywhere where it is accessible to the public... now, a "namespace"
is an obvious candidate for that, but having a single serialization, or
XHTML embedded with a single serialization is IMO not a very good idea, not
just for Dublin Core, but for the stability of RDF overall. People learn by
going through popular resources, and Dublin Core is one of them - please
set a suitable precedent.
Cheers,
--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
|