[tdwg-tapir] tapir namespace

[Roger Hyam]

Hi All,

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

http://tdwg.org/namespaces/tapir/what_you_like

(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:

http://www.tdwg.org/standards/tdwg_std_tapir_20060130/schema.xsd

My big question is: Will the schema change without the standard changing?

There would also be other related to the standard at:

http://www.tdwg.org/standards/tdwg_std_tapir_20060130/

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.

Thanks,

Roger


Döring, Markus wrote:
> Hi,
> 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:
> http://www.tdwg.org/tapir/1.0
>
> Any opinions on this?
>
> Markus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir_lists.tdwg.org
>
>   


-- 

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger at tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------