Elliotte Harold wrote:
In reconsidering this, and also in light of Leigh's comments, I am coming to think that both of you are correct. My original thinking (which has clouded my own understanding of this issue) was that the use of RDDL Nature (xlink:role) was equivalent to asserting an <rdf:type> between the related resource and the nature URI. This was in accordance with Ron Daniel's W3C Note on Harvesting RDF statements from XLink http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink2rdf/ , informative reference 9.2 in the RDDL spec. On the other hand Norm Walsh provides an alternate view in http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ specifically the "RDDL Model for Docbook" If we adopt this model (NDW/TAG) then there is no real problem using a namespace URI as the rddl:nature. (rddl:nature is now a plain 'ole property). So what I currently propose is that we continue to allow/recommend RDDL Natures like http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema *and* that we change the documentation (and rddl2ref.xsl) to reflect the model http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ Jonathan |