W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2006

RE: The URI of a RDDL "nature"

From: Williams, Stuart \(HP Labs, Bristol\) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:57:26 -0000
Message-ID: <DF5E364A470421429AE6DC96979A4F6F735985@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>

Hello Norm, Jonathan, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: 18 January 2006 17:20
> 
> / "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

Fair enough. I misunderstood the proposal as suggesting that all natures
have URIs of the form being suggested. "Be careful with the
quantifiers..." -- DC.

Thanks,

Stuart
--
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 17:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:10 UTC