RE: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit

[Jason Diamond <jason@injektilo.org>]

Hi.

> So, maybe
>
>  role= required canonical name for what kind type of thing it is, like
>        Henry says; we still provide a list of them in rddl.org/roles.html

The list in roles.html isn't intended to be the authoritative list, is it?
So no resources will be defined there? I would think that the xlink:role
could contain any URI reference regardless of whether it appeares in
roles.html.

>
>  arcrole= optional user-provided selector, also a URI, RDDL doesn't
>           provide any help here.

I would suggest that the arcrole be required and that RDDL possibly could
help here. In order to use a resource, we have to know what type of resource
it is (identified by its xlink:role) and in what context it's supposed to be
used (identified by its xlink:arcrole). RDDL could define well-known
arcroles much like it does now (with the exception that the arcroles should
define a usage context rather than type).

Jason.