Rachel Heery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
>
>>It's a good practice, IMO, and I see no reason to stop. If you
>>want to argue that we should, take it to some W3C list, not the
>>Dublin Core itself.
>>
>
>
> I do think the issue of how to manage the DC namespaces and vocabulary
> is a matter for this list ...??
I thought it was the job of this list to debate the possible candidates
and return a recommandation. Which may or may not be acted on by other
parts of DCMI.
> and I am curious as to how we could sensibly
> manage resolution of the three Dublin Core namespaces by means of RDDL
> in a way that enables terms identified by all three to be related.
>
So are you suggesting we dereference the namespace to a Registry query?
I think the RDDL suggestion isn't intended to be a the end all solution
(w.r.t. management of the namespaces), but rather a step in the right
direction.
Are the current proposed management systems (e.g., DCMI registry) being
designed with RDFS as an assumption or will they support: DTDs, XML
schema, XHTML modules,..., <insert future sematic markup schema du
jour>? As Partick points out the namespace URI is not a 1-1 mapping of
the encoding and RDDL gives a little bit of wiggle room.
Cheers Tod
--
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
|