On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Wagner,Harry wrote:
> > Not sure what you are saying...? My suggestion has to do
> > with the form
> > of the identifier: http://dublincore.org/foobar/xxxx/xx/xx/yyyyyyy/
> > as opposed to http://dublincore.org/foobar/yyyyyyy-xxxxxxxx.shtml
> OK, I'm on the same page you are.
> I hadn't considered the identifier format as part of your common approach to
> versioning documents. I agree that all new documents should contain an
> editor, date issued, identifier, previous version, latest version, status of
> document and description of document.
> If we are also going to require all new documents to have a common
> identifier format we may want to consider another approach to the
> date-seperated directory format
> (http://dublincore.org/foobar/xxxx/xx/xx/yyyyyyy/) used for the namespace
> doc. We publish so few docs that they will be scattered about with this
> approach, not to mention using an excessive number of inodes for each
I had wondered that too, especially if these date-separated directories
are scattered around the directory tree -- eg, under Usage, then under
each working group separately...! I don't have a strong opinion about
which methods to use as long as a generic "most recent version" URI is
always linked to a frozen, time-stamped URI and this linkage is
indicated in the metadata.
If possible, it would seem sensible to follow whatever method W3C uses
instead of reinventing something DCMI-specific. Have any of you on the
Web team looked closely at their methods?
> > > Does this discussion belong in the Registry WG?
> > Not sure where it belongs...
> I don't know where this belongs either but have moved it to architecture.
> Seems a better fit there. Hope you don't mind.
No, that's fine -- it does seem more like an Architecture issue.
Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
Birlinghoven Library, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven +49-2241-14-2352
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany fax +49-2241-14-2619