[topicmapmail] Fragmented XTM for web metadata, and some ontology?

[Kal Ahmed]

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 14:56, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> [Kal Ahmed]
> 
> > > As much as I understand and _somewhat_ agrees with that, it does not
> > > sound right for me to do "dc.date.publish == baseName". My thinking
> > > in terms of occurrences is that we could probably all get along much
> > > better if we deprecate "resourceData". :)
> > >
> > Then we agree on that.
> >
> 
> We MUST HAVE some way to attach literal values somehow.

Oops! I was agreeing that dc.date.publish != baseName rather than that
resourceData should be deprecated. Sorry - bad placement of my response


>   If we do not have
> resourceData, then where?  Well, we could use the data: scheme in a
> resourceRef, but that would make the data a URI and it would have to be
> URI-escaped.  Nasty.  The  upside is that it would make database and
> application design a little simpler (modulo URI escaping).
> 
> So I think that we shoul NOT depricate resourceData.  Instead, we should
> strengthen it so it can specify the type of the literal data it holds.
> 

Absolutely. Though I go one step further. I don't want a reinvention of
data typing. I just want to be able to include XML from namespaces other
than the XTM one inside the resourceData element. Then I can use
MyFavouriteSchemaLanguage to do not only datatyping but to express other
constraints on the content. Then all I want after that is the ability in
TMCL to restrict occurrences of particular types to having resourceData
content from particular namespaces. Then I would be happy.

Cheers,

Kal