That seems like a big change, and long-term for the better, but disruptive
in the shorter term while implementations change their namespaces.
A request, if we do go this route ... please don't nest namespaces, as it
makes life much harder for processing.
For example, if CRM base is http://www.cid
Dear George, all,
I agree that it is better to have namespaces under cidoc-crm.org for the
official extensions, e.g.:
http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/crmsci/ (or any other similar uri that
starts with http://www.cidoc-crm.org/)
Also, these URIs, as well as the URIs of their classes and proper
Dear all,
Thanks Nicola, that makes sense. I wonder if it is worth talking about what
namespace the extensions have going forward. Taking CRMDig as an example.
It arose from a project within which FORTH was a major partner and is an
outcome of that work. It thus makes sense that it is registered u
Dear George,
The namespace to be used should be the `xml:base` value in the RDF
document. Example:
```xml
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"; xml:lang="en"
xml:base="http://www.cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/CRMsci/";>
```
```xml
http://
Dear all,
I am wondering if anybody else struggles with what official namespace ot
use for the CRM extensions. I'm not really sure how the situation stands.
Should the minisites for each extension have a prominent place where they
display the namespaces just so we all follow the same procedure? Do
