- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 22:01:20 -0000
- To: "Ray Denenberg" <rden@loc.gov>, "zig" <www-zig@w3.org>
Note that there is the term IRI now around in namespace-land to distinguish between a URI based identifier as opposed to a actionable URI (which is really a URL - ie a locational "thing"). Matthew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:50 PM > To: zig > > > "Dietz,Dana" wrote: > > > Bath version 2 says we'll ask for syntax XML and ESN > > http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/bath/tp-dc-dtd.htm (they've got the > DTD posted > > at this URL so a parser can look there to validate). So isn't the > > problem already solved? > > That'll work for now, in the short term. > > Issues with using an actionable URI (the url where the schema > is located) are persistence, uniqueness, and ambiguity: Can > you guarantee the URI will (1) stay there, (2) be the > official identifier for that schema (even though the schema > may be replicated elsewhere), and (2) remain unchanged. > > If you try to go to: > http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/dcschema/v1.0/ you'll get "Not > Found" because it's not intended as an actionable uri but as > an identifier, the same way that an oid is an identifier. We > *can* guarantee persistence of this uri, as well as > un-ambiguity. If a new version is developed, there will be a > new uri, maybe http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/dcschema/v1.1/, > but the old uri > (http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/dcschema/v1.0/) will continue to > identify version 1.0. > > --Ray > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 17:01:25 UTC