Hi Alan:
Just to clarify one point re INFO. You say:
>a) The identifier is not intended to be dereferencable. In that
> case the info: scheme was suggested for the form of the uri, as that
> is explicitly not dereferenceable.
This is not actually quite true - but represents an earlier posit
Hi Guys:
Shouldn't bang on about this, so will shut up now. But was again reminded of
the INFO work (RFC 4452 - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4452.txt) where one of
the use cases we advance in the RFC is Dewey Decimal Classification (and
which we are still talking to OCLC about). The INFO namespace
Not sure of the relevance here but see you might like to consider also this:
http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=reg&i
dentifier=info:pmid/
PubMed identifiers are already registered under the INFO URI namespace (RFC
4452 - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4452.tx
a means of grandfathering legacy namespaces onto the Web in their own right (e.g. PubMed identifiers, ADS bibcodes, etc., etc.). Many Web applications expect identifiers to be packaged as URIs (Uniform Resource Identifiers) and "info" fulfils that need. Co-authored by Herbert Van de Sompel
Title: Re: Ontology editor + why RDF?
> So my question is: if (content and indexing) offerings are commercial and
> proprietary, does it make them less "semantic"? Does interoperability
> require openness?
Interesting question from Anita. Surely this is directly akin to the general subj
