On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jakob Voss <[log in to unmask]> 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.
|
