On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Chris Croome wrote:
> On Mon 12-Aug-2002 at 03:23:52 +0100, Andy Powell wrote:
> > Personally, I'd prefer to see us referring to 'refined elements'
> > rather than 'element refinements' and always using 'new' naming
> > constructs which result in stand-alone names like 'dateAvailable'.
> So 'conformsTo' could have been 'relationConformsTo' for consistency
> with the new naming approach?
> And 'mediator' could have been 'audienceMediator' since it's a refined
> element that is a subPropertyOf the audience element?
No, because those names work as stand-alone names anyway (for me at
least!). Looking at the current list of element refinements (I mean
refined elements! :-)), the following
don't work as stand-alone names. So, only these will need changing, e.g.
> > I'd also like to see us finding a way of going back and
> > retrospectively giving the existing 'refined elements' new-style names
> Phew, that's going to be a heck of a task!
Not too bad given the above? 8 new refined elements (that happen to be
equivalent to some existing refined elements)?
> Wouldn't it make more sense to use old style names ('accepted' rather
> than 'dateAccepted') for the existing 3 namespaces and create a _single_
> namespace, eg http://purl.org/dc/2002/ for the new style names?
Why not simply add 8 new names to the http://purl.org/dc/terms/ namespace
(there are no clashes with existing names) and then set some equivalence
between the new names and the old names in the appropriate schemas?
Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell +44 1225 383933
Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/