Rob is correct on all points.
Namespace URIs can, in some cases, be overloaded to function as schema
identifiers. But they absolutely can't be used blindly in this way
for arbitrary formats -- there are all kinds of potential gotchas.
That being so, I think it is wiser and more explicit _always_
Hi Rob,
You wrote:
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
It is mostly the case - but people like
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Jakob Voss jakob.v...@gbv.de wrote:
That's your interpretation. According to the schema, the MODS format *is*
either a single mods-element or a modsCollection-element. That's exactely
what you can refer to with the namespace identifier
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:53 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote:
A format should be described with a schema (XML Schema, OWL etc.) or at
least a standard. Mostly this schema already has a namespace or similar
identifier that can be used for the whole format.
This is unfortunately not the case.
Ross Singer wrote:
Agreed. The same is true, of course, of MARC and, by extension,
MARCXML. Part of the format is that it can be one record or
multiple. I don't think this a particularly strong argument against
using the namespace as an identifier.
Actually, the MARC format (not
