Hi Dave, Thanks! It looks a lot more elegant with "#", and still very simple. About the CNS, I think there was always an expectation that it would soon become a real service, so we just wanted to start with a simple file that was easy to type. At that time there was an attempt to specify a more powerful service which would be based on ebXML, but as far as I know it was never implemented. So the original format which was supposed to be temporary remained until now. I agree that using XML/RDF would be better, but I still think that sooner or later we will need a real service. TapirLink already needs something that maps equivalent concepts from different schemas. Best Regards, -- Renato On 22 Mar 2007 at 13:07, Dave Vieglais wrote:
Hi Renato,
I suspect Roger was thinking more along the lines of:
http://somehost/somepath/schema#someconcept
At least that's what I read from "fragment identifier".
On an aside, kind of, can someone elaborate on the decision to use a CNS file format (as described in the 1.0 spec) that is not in some form of xml, preferably RDF?
thanks, Dave V.