[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: RDDL: new natures
- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- To: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:00:59 -0500
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 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.
I thought it was perfectly natural also.
This is why it is problematic:
A class has a (i.e. one) set or group of members. If a namespace URI
identifies a class then what is the set of members:
a) the set of names in the namespace (for example)
b) the set of documents that validate to a given schema (for example)
If we are using namespace URIs as natures then these two get confused.
For example:
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
does this identify EITHER
a) the set of names in the XML Schema namespace
OR
b) the set of possible valid XML Schema documents.
>
>> 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.
The procedure has been to discuss this on XML-DEV. More recently
discussion of RDDL has taken place on WWW-TAG. These discussions have
gone on for over two years including these specific issues. I can
assure you that no changes to RDDL are being done rashly nor quickly.
Furthermore as has always been the case, the RDDL natures given in
http://www.rddl.org/natures are merely guidelines or a place to put
"well known" natures. Nowhere in the RDDL specification (http://
www.rddl.org) does it prevent you from using the "old" natures --
although I suspect that the TAG may have something more pointed to
say about this.
In any case RDDL natures have never been intended to be a fixed set
of values.
As always I am willing to listen to discussion.
Jonathan
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]