Re: RDDL natures: for the record wrote:

> Jonathan Borden asks:
>> I've been reading through http://www.w3.
>> org/2001/tag/2006/12/13-morning-minutes#item02
>> Whats is "drens"? I can't decipher the record.
>> From those same minutes:
>> Lunch revealed an consensus among danc noah and timbl that hte
>> current rddl usage of sometimes a DRENS (doc root elemnt
>> namespace ) as a rddl:nature and sometimes somthing quite other
>> as a category error which seiously limit sthe use of the metsdata.
> So, it appears to be a shorthand for Document Root Element  
> Namespace.  I
> doubt the TAG is promoting this term for widespread usage; most  
> likely it
> crept in as a shorthand in the minutes (or maybe it is widely used  
> and I'm
> not aware?)

Got it. My impression is that most people would like to continue to  
use "DRENS" as RDDL natures.

The "sometimes quite other" usages perhaps were not well thought out  
when RDDL was first put together in 2001. In specific using "http://" as the nature of an ISO specification crept into RDDL  
purely because that was and is a reasonably well known URI associated  
with ISO. From a simplistic perspective when you click on "http://" you get a web page which describes "ISO".

How does this "category error seriously limit the use of the metadata"?

No one is saying that when you use as a RDDL  
nature that you are *equating* with "ISO the  
organization" as opposed to "the web site of the ISO organization".


Received on Thursday, 21 December 2006 22:23:45 UTC