W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

Betr.: Re: requesting XML records

From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:31:48 +0100
Message-Id: <se846af9.019@mail.kb.nl>
To: <rden@loc.gov>, <www-zig@w3.org>

My schema is dcx (shortname) with URI=http://www.kb.nl/persons/theo/dcx
until there is a better URI.

Theo


>>> Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> 28-03-03 15:02 >>>

Mike Taylor wrote:

> I honestly don't know whether this is A Good Idea or not.  I can see
> strong arguments both ways.

My argument against: The XML namespace id concept was conceived by the w3c
and the suggestion is to use it in a manner  not only that they never
intended, but that they wouldn't even understand if we tried to explain it
to them (we've tried, they haven't).

My suggestion is that we continue (as proposed) to think along the lines of
letting the element set name take on schema name values.

I want to stress the point that  "schema" doesn't necessarily mean "XML
schema".  We (Z39.50) came up with the our schema concept long before XML
schemas.  (On the other hand, although the W3C doesn't own "namespace"
either, they do own "*XML* namespace").

Thus if you want a schema to mean "DC unqualified, title and identifier
only"  come up with a name for that.  (I hesitate to suggest a name, and I'm
not suggesting structured ESNs, they would still be primitive. Thus the name
might be DCU1, and another combination DCU2, no structured  names like
DCU/t/i.)  If you want a schema to mean "DC-like elements", come up with a
schema name (you *don't* have to define an xml schema).  I think we can come
up with a manageable and useful list it we try.

If someone needs more functionality, such as provided by compSpec, use
compSpec.

--Ray
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 09:34:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:23 GMT