W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2006

RE: identifier or dc:URI?

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:46:30 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190119BBA3@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 

Hi,

Comments below...

> We need to find a replacement for the (non-existing) 
> dc:location property in the following EARL classes:
> 
> * earl:Software (which may be replaced by dctype:Software)
> * earl:WebContent
> 
> There are currently two candidates for replacement:
> 
> * dc:identifier:
>  - description: 
> <http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#identifier>
>  - RDF Schema: <http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#>
>  - Comment: it is a more generic meaning of a mean of 
> identifying something
> 
> * dcterm:URI:
>  - description: <http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#URI>
>  - RDF Schema: <http://dublincore.org/2005/06/13/dcq#>
>  - Comment: means URI as defined by 
> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>
> 
> It may also make sense to adopt both these properties. For 
> example, "identifier" could be more generic such as an 
> internal build version for a software (which is different 
> from be public version number); and "URI" should really only 
> mean the Web location where applicable.

I don't like both properties adoption because "URI" is included in
"identifier"

"...Example formal identification systems include the Uniform Resource
Identifier (URI) (including the Uniform Resource Locator (URL)..."

[http://www.dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#identifier]

IMO if we have a clear use case for non-URI identifiers then we should
choose "identifier", if not we should choose "URI" (but I'm not sure
about what its "registered" status implies and how it differs from the
"recommended" status).

Regards,

CI.
Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 13:47:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT