- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 1995 12:20:11 PST
- To: rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov
- Cc: hoymand@gate.net, michael.mealling@oit.gatech.edu, uri@bunyip.com
> As for the battle over the core elements, we could push the scheme > described above to its extreme and say "there are NO core elements, we > require ALL attributes to have the URN of their explanation". I think > that is a bad idea for a couple of reasons - chaos and length. Chaos > would occur when we 150,000 URNs for "author", "title", etc. Length is > pretty obvious - would you rather type <author> or <author > scheme="urn:iana:here.there.org:foo">? We can't eliminate the chaos that already exists in the world of meta-data for documents; trying to invent a 'core' set doesn't reduce the chaos, in fact, but rather adds to it, by introducing yet another *new* attribute set. Naming each attribute *set* rather than each individual attribute will reduce the length to be something managable. It might be possible to also allow individual attributes to be named even if they don't occur in the overall set. <urc scheme="urn:iana:here.there.org:foo"> <author>...</author> <title>...</title> <author scheme="urn:iana:banana.br:trigram"> </author> </urc>
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 1995 15:22:32 UTC