W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2001

Re: quick review of the PRISM spec

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:20:47 -0600
To: <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
CC: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6D1565F.24C77%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
First, thanks to Ron for getting me an HTML copy of the spec.

Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com> wrote:

>> * <dc:coverage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:gr" />
>> er... the iso3166-2 URI scheme is new to me; are you registering
>> it?
> Nope, that would be for ISO to register.
>> * <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" />
>> whoa! don't give folks the impression they can create their own
>> URI schemes just like that.
> I am happy to change this to something else.
>> * <dc:subject rdf:resource="NAICS:21"/>
>> more unregistered URI schemes?
> Yup. That one is for NAFTA's industry classification scheme
> known as NAICS - North American Industrial Classification System.

I think Dan, Tim, I and a bunch of other people would be glad if you got
these URI schemes out of the spec.

> But a lightweight procedure for registering URI schemes would be nice.

No, it wouldn't creating new, unnecessary URI schemes is generally a bad
idea. They can almost always be fitted into some sort of existing scheme
just fine, whether it's by a URL, or, if you're desperate, some sort of URN.

>> * xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.0/basic/"
>> I recommend "...basic#" rather than "...basic/", because "...basic/"
>> necessarily
>> denotes an HTTP resource, i.e. a sort of generic document
>> (i.e. a thing
>> that responds to GET requests), but RDF properties and classes
>> might turn out to be disjoint from HTTP resources.
>> "...basic#foo" isn't
>> constrained the way "...basic/foo" is. (@@does this make any sense?
>> Ask TimBL about it if you get a chance.)
> Yes, it does make some sense. But basic#foo is constrained in
> other ways. You have to fetch all of basic and then dig through
> it for #foo. The PRISM namespaces are small enough that would not
> be a big filesize problem (unlike the LCSH case), but the only
> format that has fragment identifiers defined for it right now
> is HTML. So, one way or the other we are implicitly saying something
> about the resource - that it is an HTTP resource or that the thing
> is a part of an HTML file. Both suck, but I think the HTTP
> thing sucks less. I am open to argument on this issue, however.

Actually, that's not true. XPointer is in Last Call:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr

and the so-called "bare name" syntax is practically guaranteed to sustain
any future drafts, as well as expected to be added to just about every other
MIME type. Anyway, I don't know how important this is, but I wanted to
correct you.

However, I do think it would be rather useful to get something at those
namespace URIs. RDDL will do just fine, and it has fragment identifiers
defined (both by XPointer and by HTML!).

A typo:
> which then contains one of RDF's collection constructs, such as dc:Seq.

I think you mean rdf:Seq.

I'd also appreciate seeing RSS in the "Relationship to Other Specs" section.

It looks pretty good, although it might be useful to break the normative and
non-normative parts into two separate documents to make it shorter.
-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 17:20:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT