Re: The URI of a RDDL "nature"

/ "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com> was heard to say:
| Hello Norm,
|
| I'm just catching up on this thread...
|
|> It is with this in mind that the TAG wonders if you'd be 
|> willing to establish new URIs with the pattern 
|> http://www.rddl.org/natures#<term>
|> for the natures. I would suggest preserving, but deprecating, 
|> the natures listed above (so that there would be two natures for those
|> resources) and simply dropping the rest. 
|
| Under this proposal, RDDL natures become a closed space under the
| control of the maintainer/owner of rddl.org rather than an openly
| extensible space where anyone could contribute a new nature. Is that
| really what the TAG wants?

No, and that's not the case either. Just because

  http://rddl.org/natures#w3c-xml-schema

is the nature for W3C XML Schema, that doesn't preclude me from
inventing the nature

  http://nwalsh.com/rddl/natures#my-funky-thing

| It strikes me that one would want the space of rddl natures to be openly
| extensible so that one could say something like:
|
| 	:myNatureTerm a rddl:nature .

.e.g. 

  <http://nwalsh.com/rddl/natures#my-funky-thing> a rddl:nature .

:-)

| in order to declare term as a rddl nature. Once could of course the
| dereference the nature term to find more (machine/human) readable
| documentation about that nature (maybe in another namespace document
| :-).

Exactly. My next pass through the document will probably try to do a
little more/better job with the ontology.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.