RDDL natures: for the record

I've been reading through http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/13- 
morning-minutes#item02

Several people on the TAG, (timbl among others) seem to be saying  
that there is a problem with RDDL natures being namespace names. What  
I am saying is that IFF RDDL natures are *classes* then I agree i.e.  
if the RDF translation of rddl:nature is rdf:type then I agree with  
this as being a problem. OTOH, since RDDL natures *aren't* classes,  
then what is the issue? A rddl:nature might be a namespace name that  
is used to -indirectly- identify a class of documents perhaps  
conforming to some type of specification.

Whats is "drens"? I can't decipher the record.

Moreover, DanC was heard to say that he can't endorse RDDL because  
http://www.rddl.org/nature returns 404 --- WTF???

http://www.rddl.org/natures gives you back a document describing RDDL  
natures.

http://www.rddl.org/#nature gives you one of the locations in the  
RDDL spec where rddl:nature is described.

What made anyone thing that http://www.rddl.org/nature was supposed  
to resolve?????????

Am I seriously missing something?

In any case it is not that I personally am pushing back on this  
issue, rather that when I proposed making the changes that the TAG  
has suggested, that the XML-DEV community, which has collectively  
devised the RDDL specification, has pushed back, both publicly and  
privately.

Jonathan

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 03:46:08 UTC