Re: RDDL: new natures
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. -- ï»¿Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... 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]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format