Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way todispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,

["Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@home.com>]

Jonathan Borden writes -

>
> Using your proposal -- which I think is fine btw, it just adds a little
> complexity for the most common situation --:
>
> RDDLURL rurl = new RDDLURL(
>                                 http://wherever.org/some-ns , // namespace
> URI
>                                 http://www.rddl.org/arcrole#main-schema , //
> xlink:arcrole
>                                 http://www.rddl.org/2000/10/XMLSchema //
> xlink:role
>                             );
> InputStream xsdStream = rurl.getInputStream();
>

I'm thinking that this is a case of  "as simple as possible but no simpler"
:-)

> >
> > I propose - or request - that this distinction be clearly incorporated
> into
> > the rddl rec, and that it be implemented with a set of URIs for "arcrole"
> that
> > are distinct from the URIs for "role".
>
>     I agree with the distinction you are making and will incorporate this
> into the next version of the spec.
>
Thank you.

>     We've come to the agreement that the xl:role for XSD is properly
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema .

I'm happy with it, too.
>
>     Is there a URI you suggest we use as the xl:arcrole for an XSD or are
> you saying that we should create one? (Remember that under most
> circumstances the xl:arcrole alone can be used to disambiguate resources)
> Perhaps we might use the URI of the specification itself?

> > >
> > > xl:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/arcrole#imported-schema
> > > xl:role="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema
> > >

Perfect! Nothing else would seem to make as much sense, as long as rddl.org
can be maintained.

Cheers,

Tom P