- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:49:40 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org, XML Developers List <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Jonathan Borden wrote: > > After alot of useful discussion on the TAG, it has been pointed out to > me that some of the URIs that we originally selected for RDDL natures > don't make sense. In particular we were using namespace URIs as the RDDL > natures of things whereas the RDDL nature of something is really a class > or group that it belongs to. I must have missed something. Why is this considered necessary? The namespace URI seems like a perfectly natural way to identify a class or group that it belongs to. > In response to the TAG request I've updated http://www.rddl.org/natures > to deprecate the old nature URIs and suggest new URIs. This is all of > the form: I wish there were a more formal procedure for updating RDDL. Even if I were convinced that using namespace URIs as natures was a bad idea (and I'm not), I still wouldn't want to change the natures at this late date. I'd like to raise a formal objection to this, and request that at least the existing RDDL natures be maintained as is, unchanged, and without any new values for the same natures. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Received on Sunday, 10 December 2006 10:49:56 UTC