Dave <[email protected]> wrote on 05/27/2010 08:36:21 AM: [snip]
> > 2. Our use of Dublin Core namespace prefixes seems a little inconsistent > > with common practice. We are using the newer terms namespace, > > http://purl.org/dc/terms/ instead of the legacy elements namespace > > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/. However, the usual prefix for the terms > > namespace seems to be dcterms: while the elements namespace uses dc:. I > > suggest we adopt this convention and use dcterms: as the predefined and > > recommended prefix. See [1] > > I wrote this up on the issues page. Here's what I wrote for the resolution: > > Response: this is not a new situation, the old v1 specs used the new > namespace and the old prefix too. We seem to have two options now: > 1) Continue to use the new Dublin Core namespace and to use the old > "dc" prefix. Pros: no change to implementations, won't break badly > behaved clients who have hardcoded the namespace prefix. Cons: does > not follow Dublin Core conventions > 2) Switch to using the new "dcterms" prefix. Pros: follows Dublin Core > conventions. Cons: could break badly behaved clients. > > After writing that I think changing is a bad idea. Here's why. > > In theory, recommending "dcterms" as the prefix won't break > implementations because XML parsing tools can handle any prefix for a > namespace -- so this change should be no problem. But, in practice, I > worry that we may have some badly behaved implementations, that we had > no way to declaring prefixes in query URIs and that we had no way to > declare prefixes in our JSON representations -- so query URIs and JSON > representations could be broken by this change. > > And, according to that same theory, we should be able to stick with > the old "dc" prefix because XML parsing tools can use any prefix for a > namespace. We won't break existing implementations if we stick with as > the "suggested prefix" for Dublin Core elements. So, why change > anything? > > Maybe I'm not understanding the benefits of making this change. Are > there more "pros" to changing than what I have listed? > I agree that we should stick to using "dc". I don't think we have any of the DC legacy issues to be concerned about. > [snip] Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
