> For (2), the suggested solution is for DCMI to support the use of a
> "catch all" "dcx namespace" that anyone (?) can use as the basis for the
> URIs for any (?) of their (non-DC) terms.
> I'd argue that it makes no difference whether a term has a URI of
> http://purl.org/dc/dcx/myterm or http://dublincore.org/dcx/myterm or
> http://purl.org/tel/terms/myterm or
> http://www.europeanlibrary.org/terms/myterm as regards my ability to
> find out what the term means.
Maybe you think about something like
> My ability to find information about the meaning of any term
> defined/owned by someone else depends on people following shared
> social/administrative conventions about disclosing that information,
> I just don't think that information about terms with URIs beginning
> http://purl.org/dc/dcx is somehow _intrinsically_ more "discoverable"
> than information about terms with URIs beginning
> http://www.europeanlibrary.org/ or http://myproject.org/.
> It's the use
> of shared procedures and conventions (including considerations about
> dereferencing and persistence) that make that information
> available/accessible to other people. DCMI has explicitly addressed this
> for the URIs it owns/creates in the namespace policy document (which I
> think would be better titled a _URI_ policy document, but that's by the
> by!) and in DCMI Usage Board implementation of that policy in its
> (a) improved understanding of the _responsibilities_ associated with
> declaring metadata terms and assigning URIs to them (I don't deny that,
> as Andy said in one of his messages, there may be some diffficult issues
> in terms of persistence if such URIs are being created in the context of
> short-term projects);
In this respect metadata is in no way different from other materials
on and off the web. The first known to me, who stated the problem is
Anaximander ...way back in history.
> (b) shared, consistent practices for the _disclosure_ of information
> about those terms and URIs
> I don't think either (a) or (b) requires the use of a catch-all "dcx
> namespace", and indeed creating a "dcx namespace" for people to use as
> the basis of their URIs wouldn't in itself address the problem: it's the
> conventions and policies that do that.
> In terms of disclosure "services", one practical measure for DCMI to
> consider might be whether the DCMI registry (or a DCMI-provided registry
> implementation) indexes data for terms from sources other than DCMI
> (though I'd suggest there would need to be some control on what was
I wouldn't use the term "control". One needs quite a few organizing principles
to make up for a useful ontology. Not an easy task - as we know.