- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:06:20 -0000
- To: "Andy Powell" <a.powell@ukoln.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-zig@w3.org>
> And presumably each of these would have an appropriately > strict or loose XML schema associated with it - so, > applications would still phrase their requests by providing > the URL of the XML schema associated with each of the 4 > 'labels' above? Yes. > Is an application profile that uses 1 DC element and 50 IEEE > LOM elements a 'loose simple DC' application or a 'loose IEEE > LOM' application or both or either? ;-) The point being that > the naming above (and Theo's DCX name) takes a very > DC-centric view of the world. Does this matter? Both - a DC centric client would request a loose DC record and a IEEE LOM centric client a loose IEEE LOM record - the server would return the same record in both cases. However, your question makes me wonder whether this is a good solution after all. In a sense in the "loose" cases it could be argued that the client *is* sending what namespaces it would like included but that it isn't really interested in schema (I want a record that contains identifiable DC elements but I don't care what else is in there). I still think ComSpec is the answer here - looking at it we have the following fields recordSyntax - ok that's XML Specification/Schema - well that seems a good place to put in a schema URI if you want an XML document conformant to that schema Specification/elementSpec - well that seems a pretty good place to put namespace URL's if you aren't interested in getting a record in a particular schema but are interested in getting a record which includes elements from a particular namespace! (or if the schema in question allows elements imported from abitrary namespaces within it) Matthew
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 09:06:26 UTC