[tdwg-tapir] tapir namespace
m.doering at BGBM.org
Fri Jan 6 13:51:01 CET 2006
just some quick notes I had in mind when reading your mail.
I really like to have the schema and its documentation behind the namespace. I dont know of a reason why namespaces should point into nothing.
For the domain I like the idea of namespace.tdwg.org or maybe standards.tdwg.org
The schema file itself would better be named tapir.xsd or something other more descriptive than schema.xsd.
Whether the pure directory http://ns.tdwg.org/tapir/1.0 resolves immediately to the schema or just an index page that links to the schema and further links I dont know. It would be great if its the schema, but then how do you know about the documentation?
Just quick notes as I said.
But I am sure we can change the namespace by February - as long as there arent that many applications existing...
Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] Im Auftrag von Roger Hyam
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Januar 2006 12:47
An: Döring, Markus
Cc: lee at tdwg.org; tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] tapir namespace
Ricardo and I just discussed namespaces and schema locations without coming to a conclusion. TDWG needs a namespace and schema location policy and we need to reserve a space for these as we put the infrastructure in place.
There are a host of issues to resolve including how we do resources in ontologies, what happens if you try and resolve a namespace URI - do you get a page not found, a generic message saying it is a namespace or specific message or a redirect etc. Should the schema location be the same as the standard location or embedded within it. Also we need to have 'permanent' URLs for standards themselves. Oh and what happens if we change the name of the organisation as people bring up from time to time!
Some of the issues are closely related to GUID stuff so I am hope that we can have a very brief discussion about it at the GUID meeting over a beer and just decide on a load of these things. Many things are more or less arbitrary and a decision just needs to be taken - any decision.
Can you wait till February for a final policy on what the namespace URIs will look like?
I suggest namespaces will be of the form
(note no www as it is not a web thing. We could go for namespaces.tdwg.org/tapir ...)
and schema stuff might be like this:
My big question is: Will the schema change without the standard changing?
There would also be other related to the standard at:
including the normative documentation and a cover page xml document with metadata for the standard.
Does this make sense? I'd appreciate feedback as I am actively working on the specification for all this stuff.
Döring, Markus wrote:
> another thing is the namespace of TAPIR.
> Currently its http://www.tdwg.org/schemas/tapir/datasource/1.0
> Are there guidelines from tdwg for this?
> Do we still need the "datasource" being part of the url? Initially this was done to indicate that this protocol only specifies the communication to/from a datasource and not between portals, aggregators, proxies or relays, ...
> But are we still thinking of creating a family of TAPIR protocols?
> Personally I am quite indifferent. I would be happy with just a short one such as:
> Any opinions on this?
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
Taxonomic Databases Working Group
roger at tdwg.org
+44 1578 722782
tdwg-tapir mailing list
tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-tag