On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>
> How would RDDL prevent you from doing this? You could even
> generate the RDDL from whatever you defined as the canonical
> version. You could have the registry keep the RDDL up-to-date.
> RDDL is just a format, like any other -- I'm not quite sure how
> it prevents you from doing the above.
Well, that sounds good.
The other query that occurred to me is how we would deal with the 3 DCMI
namespaces we have, each with its own schema .... a RDDL resolution for
each of them, I assume.
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
http://purl.org/dc/terms/
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/
One would want the RDDL for each to refer to the others...
I see the DCMI registry as an 'added value web service' that enables
navigation, querying, translation to be provided across the 3 schemas.
This registry service provided/approved/recommended by DCMI would be
infused with the 'canonical schemas', which i would suggest is an RDFS
expression including comments, translations to ensure all richness is
captured.
Rachel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Heery
UKOLN
University of Bath tel: +44 (0)1225 826724
Bath, BA2 7AY, UK fax: +44 (0)1225 826838
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
|