W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Use of Topic Map URIs WAS: Trust, Context, Justification and Quintuples

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:26:59 +0000
Message-ID: <3FFBDEF3.40108@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Waggy <waggy@yahoo.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>



> This is good.  Now, after scrutinizing the rights statement in the
> topicmap documents for identifying countries and languages, I think it
> would even be acceptable to use the following language URIs, though there
> is no guarantee topicmaps.org will formally define them the same.


 > The point is to be allowed by the namespace owner to excercise the 'X' in
 > 'XML' when needed.*  This is not necessarily a Good Thing for all
 > controlled vocabularies, but for many it is.  (Think about historians who
 > want to talk about country:US-D1803-04-30.)  Ideally, the namespace owner
 > will maintain the document, keeping it current and encouraging feedback.


There's a draft for a replacement to RFC 3066 (lang tags) on its way soon I 
believe. It might have some built in infinite extensibility for countries 
and dates and maybe scripts (that has been a topic on the ietf-language 
list, but I haven't been paying attention).

Quite how the maintainers of the language or country doc will respond to 
having a logically infinite document I don't know - I don't see any real 
problems myself (except the download time!)

I am also of the view that if you use fragIDs that aren't actually defined 
by the 'owner' but you use them following the principles used by the 
'owner' then you will be understood, so go for it. cf social meaning list.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 05:28:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT