• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>
• Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:49:40 -0500

Jonathan Borden wrote:
> 
> After alot of useful discussion on the TAG, it has been pointed out to 
> me that some of the URIs that we originally selected for RDDL natures 
> don't make sense. In particular we were using namespace URIs as the RDDL 
> natures of things whereas the RDDL nature of something is really a class 
> or group that it belongs to.

I must have missed something. Why is this considered necessary? The 
namespace URI seems like a perfectly natural way to identify a class
or group that it belongs to.

> In response to the TAG request I've updated http://www.rddl.org/natures 
> to deprecate the old nature URIs and suggest new URIs. This is all of 
> the form:

I wish there were a more formal procedure for updating RDDL. Even if I 
were convinced that using namespace URIs as natures was a bad idea (and 
I'm not), I still wouldn't want to change the natures at this late date. 
I'd like to raise a formal objection to this, and request that at least 
the existing RDDL natures be maintained as is, unchanged, and without 
any new values for the same natures.



-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RDDL: new natures
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>