On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jakob Voss <jakob.v...@gbv.de> wrote: >> 2) require some laborious and lengthy submission and review process to >> just say "hey, here's my FOAF available via UnAPI" > > The identifier for FOAF is http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/. Forget about > identifiers that are not URIs. OAI-PMH at least includes a mechanism to map > metadataPrefixes to official URIs but this mechanism is not always used. If > unAPI lacks a way to map a local name to a global URI, we should better fix > unAPI to tell us: > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <formats xmlns="http://unapi.info/"> > <format name="foaf" uri="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"/> > </formats> > I generally agree with this, but what about formats that aren't XML or RDF based? How do I also say that you can grab my text/x-vcard? Or my application/marc record? There is still lots of data I want that doesn't necessarily have these characteristics.
What about XML formats that have no namespace? JSON objects that conform to a defined structure? Protocol Buffers? And, while I didn't really want to wade into these waters, what about formats that are really only used to carry other formats, where it's the *other* format that really matters (METS, Atom, OpenURL XML, etc.)? > unAPI should be revised and specified bore strictly to become an RFC anyway. > Yes, this requires a laborious and lengthy submission and review process but > there is no such thing as a free lunch. > Yeah, I have no problem with this (same with Jangle). The argument could be made, however, is there a cowpath yet to be paved? -Ross.