- From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:35:03 GMT
- To: rden@loc.gov
- CC: www-zig@w3.org, carrol.lunau@NLC-BNC.CA, slavko@mun.ca
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:38:12 -0500 > From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> > > One suggestion is to assign object identifiers > subordinate to 1.2.840.10003.5.109.10. This idea > has a number of disadvantages and unless someone > wants to pursue this approach I'd prefer to > discard it. I would like to know what the disadvantages _are_ before agreeing to discard this approach! At first sight, it seems admirable. > Another approach is to indicate the schema using > comSpec. This idea didn't catch on because many > of the interested parties want a solution that > will work with version 2. ... of course ... > Yet another approach is to use the element set > name parameter to indicate the schema. Actually, > this is pretty much what we agreed upon in > principle at the last ZIG meeting (nearly a year > ago). Was I out of the room? :-) The element-set name really doesn't seem like the right place for this at all, but I admit to not having any real recollection of that discussion, so I may well be forgetting some compelling point. > But we didn't think this through carefully > enough. Do we mean a schema, or a namespace? (If we go this route at all) We _definitely_ mean schema. Namespace is a complete red herring, and it is misleading even to mention it in this context. > On one hand, there isn't really a unique uri for a > schema There is if we make one up. > My proposal is to adopt the approach used by SRW when > faced with a similar problem. For the esn, use a > URI that serves as an identifier for the desired > schema (you don't have to call it a namespace). I like the approach of using schema URIs, but I would like to consider what the alternatives are to putting it in the element-set name. > I understand the weakness of this approach, it > won't scale well if we have thousands of schemas, > but at the moment we don't, and we need a simple > and quick solution. I don't see a scaling problem with this at all -- in fact, I'd have thought scalability was one of the _strengths_ of this approach. (The only problem is that, since the DCMI steadfastly refuse to define an XML Schema for Dublin Core, a dozen different projects are busily at work defining their own, subtly incompatible, versions.) Hope this helps. _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "There is a game I like to play / I like to hit the town on Friday night / and stay in bed until Sunday" -- The Cranberries, who clearly don't have children. -- Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 16:35:52 UTC