Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jeff Lowery wrote:
> Okay, Jonathan's teasing me, but I can take it. There's no such thing as a
> stupid question, just stupid people (did I say that?).
> Anyhow, I've now thoroughly perused the RDDL spec, and understand at least
> part of it. What I'm not seeing (and maybe it's there) is how it describes
> namespace URIs that are *only* an identifier? It seems to me there should
> an explicit "purpose" value in RDDL for that, but I'm not seeing it.
yes (and now I understand your question better). one can certainly define a
purpose which indicates that a URI is intended only as an "identifier" or
RDDL does not limit the URIs which are to be used as purposes or natures to
those located in the 'well known' directories of such URIs.
http://www.rddl.org/purposes and http://www.rddl.org/natures but "view
source" on either of these documents to see an example of how a
_terminology_ might itself be created in RDDL. The term "purpose" is itelf
defined as a rddl:resource:
<p>The <code>purpose</code> of a resource link determines what the
link will be used for.
... <p>This document defines a number of
<code>purposes</code> for referenced resource links.</p>
In this case the URI http://www.rddl.org/purposes#purpose is not necessarily
intended to be resolved _itself_ on the other hand if one does so, one gets
a description of the URI.
Maybe the only URIs that are not intended to be resolved are those that are
not associated with a network protocol. I thought the URI scheme "urn" was
for that, but people have created protocols to resolve "urn:"s so this isn't