- From: John Stracke <francis@netscape.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 10:52:26 -0700
- To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- CC: Meta2 Mailing List <meta2@net.lut.ac.uk>
Ron Daniel wrote: > on section 2.1 > The datamodel working group of the Dublin Core has recommended that > the URI http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/ be the one for the XML > namespace used for the 15 Dublin Core elements. That decision has > not been ratified by the community as a whole, but it might be better > to replace the ftp.isi.edu URL with this one. That sounds reasonable. Any guess on how long it'll take to get ratified? > Assume an XML document describes itself with some embedded > DC. > It is allowed, but not required, to have a dc:Identifier that holds > the > URI of the XML document. I'm not sure of WebDAV's handling of > implicit > identifiers, so you may want to say something on this point. I'm not sure what you mean by implicit identifiers. An XML document stored as a WebDAV property does not have a URI--WebDAV properties are not resources. Does that answer the question? > 2.3 > The Dublin Core datamaldel WG has been looking into issues of > repetition of > property values. That working group is making a schema for basic and > for > qualified Dublin Core using RDF. OK, then probably the best move is for WebDAV to store the properties in whatever format DC uses (since RDF is expressed in XML already). > So, while the Dublin Core assumes some capabilities that are more > general > than WebDAV, Actually, WebDAV properties can be any XML you like; the <ol><li> in my Draft is specific to the Draft. > 2.4 Subelements > The DC commuity has not completed its work on specifying qualifiers. That's why the Draft says: Since subelements are not yet standardized, this document cannot yet give a definitive answer on how to integrate them into WebDAV; a future document may be needed. > We can talk about what is going on, in case the WebDAV group wants to > try > and future-proof WebDAV against what may be coming there. I'm pretty sure WebDAV itself doesn't really need new capabilities here; we just need to define a way of expressing DC elements in the framework we've got. -- /====================================================================\ |John (Francis) Stracke |My opinions are my own.|S/MIME supported | |Software Retrophrenologist|=========================================| |Netscape Comm. Corp. | Illiterate? Write today for free help! | |francis@netscape.com | | \====================================================================/
Received on Thursday, 8 October 1998 13:52:30 UTC