Agreed. Now is the right time for this.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2007/4/18, Dave Vieglais <<a href="mailto:vieglais@ku.edu">vieglais@ku.edu</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Renato,<br>I would favor the use of fragment identifiers for the predicates as<br>it is consistent with their intended use. I expect the difficulty<br>associated with reconfiguration now will be much less than the<br>
problems encountered later if this change is not made.<br><br>Dave V.<br><br>On Apr 19, 2007, at 08:32, Renato De Giovanni wrote:<br><br>> Dear all,<br>><br>> This is clearly a crosscutting issue and I thought about using the
<br>> TAPIR mailing list for the following reasons:<br>><br>> 1) The main people involved with DarwinCore are subscribed here;<br>> 2) This issue raised from a TAPIR use case;<br>> 3) It can affect all existing TAPIR/DarwinCore providers, as well as
<br>> all output models based on DarwinCore.<br>><br>> As you know, there was a recent release of TapirLink which includes<br>> an LSID authority that serves an RDF representation of DarwinCore by<br>> default.
<br>><br>> Everything seems to be working fine, but when I parse the resulting<br>> RDF in the W3C validator, I see that the predicates are being<br>> displayed as:<br>><br>> <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcoreGenus">
http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcoreGenus</a><br>><br>> While in the semantic world the "expected" representation would be<br>> something like:<br>><br>> <a href="http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcore#Genus">http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/dwcore#Genus
</a><br>><br>> Apparently it seems just a cosmetic thing, but after some quick<br>> research this "unexpected representation" can cause problems<br>> depending on usage and tools: for instance, if it's necessary to
<br>> perform RDF/XML round-tripping, then semantic web tools may not work<br>> if there's no clear separation between the namespace URI and local<br>> names, which is normally done by using the fragment identifier.
<br>><br>> If you're interested, you can find a similar discussion here:<br>> <a href="http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16476.html">http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16476.html</a><br>
><br>> Which has this interesting follow-up:<br>> <a href="http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16480.html">http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16480.html</a><br>><br>> Since the new DarwinCore version and its extensions are not yet a
<br>> TDWG standard and may even be subject to other changes, I'm proposing<br>> to add the fragment identifier to all Darwin namespaces. Better to do<br>> this as soon as possible if we're going to need this in the future.
<br>><br>> Please let me know if you have any comments, ideas or concerns...<br>><br>> It may be the case that this change will affect other things (like<br>> the new GBIF REST service) although probably not as much as
<br>> TAPIR/DarwinCore providers which will need to re-map their databases.<br>><br>> Best Regards,<br>> --<br>> Renato<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tdwg-tapir mailing list
<br>> <a href="mailto:tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir</a><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>tdwg-tapir mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org">tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir">http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>