[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: RDDL: new natures
- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:49:40 -0500
Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
> After alot of useful discussion on the TAG, it has been pointed out to
> me that some of the URIs that we originally selected for RDDL natures
> don't make sense. In particular we were using namespace URIs as the RDDL
> natures of things whereas the RDDL nature of something is really a class
> or group that it belongs to.
I must have missed something. Why is this considered necessary? The
namespace URI seems like a perfectly natural way to identify a class
or group that it belongs to.
> In response to the TAG request I've updated http://www.rddl.org/natures
> to deprecate the old nature URIs and suggest new URIs. This is all of
> the form:
I wish there were a more formal procedure for updating RDDL. Even if I
were convinced that using namespace URIs as natures was a bad idea (and
I'm not), I still wouldn't want to change the natures at this late date.
I'd like to raise a formal objection to this, and request that at least
the existing RDDL natures be maintained as is, unchanged, and without
any new values for the same natures.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]