W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2006

RDDL natures and purposes

From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:44:02 -0500
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <87lkxps0lp.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
/ Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org> was heard to say:
|   Dan Connolly wrote:
| ...
|
|>
|>
|> DC
|>       * accepted on 22 Sep 2005
|>
|>
|>         ask for "default nature" to be changed to "implicit nature" in
|>         RDDL spec
|>
|>  I haven't made any progress; hmm... maybe I will by tomorrow...
|>
|
| I've gone ahead and made this change.
|
| Note that the URIs selected for use in http://www.rddl.org/natures/
| and http://www.rddl.org/purposes/ were not selected with a great deal
| of discussion.
|
| For example, the URI for the nature of an "ISO specification" was
| selected to be
| http://www.iso.ch/ but I fully realize that this might be problematic
| and and ambiguous ... I accept all blame for selecting this URI. I am
| not AT ALL attached to this selection. This was the first time since
| 2001 that I have been made aware of an issue this this selection and
| I am perfectly happy to change the URI to something more  appropriate
| ... suggestions?

Not for that one, but Henry pointed out that the nature of XML Schema
is currently listed as http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema where
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema would be more appropriate.

| Finally, I have not received any feedback on the proposed revision of
| RDDL to incorporate the "rddl:nature" and "rddl:purpose" attributes.
| i.e.
|
| http://www.rddl.org/20050704/

Uhm. I see "7. RDDL Attributes" in the ToC, but 
"7. Related Resources for RDDL" in the actual document.

Given that RDDL 1.0 has become widely deployed since we started this
excercise, I've been leading the TAG discussions away from any
particular syntax and towards a common model.

| (this document needs more work but gives you the idea of what is
| being proposed ... namely allowing <a rddl:nature="..."
| rddl:purpose="..."> in addition to what is already in RDDL 1.0)
|
| is this something anyone has a strong feeling about (Tim and I are in
| favor if that counts).

I'm in favor too, I think.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 18:44:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:47 UTC