Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> > So does this mean you want to formalize what you called the 'lucky dip' > earlier this year in regard to URIs, where there may be times when > (namespaceURI=schemaURI) works and other times where it doesn't? No, I think there can still be a convention established with respects the different uses. For example, the convention could be that dereferencng the namespace URI (when it is an http:, at least) results in: * a structural schema (XML Schema, DTD, or HTML documentation, or other schema like Schematron, RELAX, XDR, SOX, DSD, etc determined by content negotiation); * a semantic schema (RDF Schema) also containing links to structural schema(s) according to a well-kown convention; * some definite kind of directory or resource discovery document, to be decided, which allows systematic retrieval of lots of different kinds of resource, including links to semantic and structural schemas; * or nothing. This should be a recommendatation distinct from the Namespaces REC. This at least provides a way forward, by blocking out things like allowing the namespaces URI to be a CSS documents etc. So rather than seeing the different resources as competitive, it establishes a hierarchy, where we always know how to get to a structural schema (if one exists) and a semantic schema (if one exists) by chaining along the namespace URI. This would allow the simple use of namespace URI=schema URI, but also be workable for people who want to provide other or different or multiple related resources. Cheers Rick Jelliffe Academia Sinica
|
