[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [egov-registry] Need for standard URI structure (Was Re:[egov-registry] regrep)
Paul Spencer wrote: >Farrukh, > >This is what I have put in the document I am preparing: > >==== >When mapping to the ebRIM, URIs are used as identifiers in various places. >The two types of URI usually used in such cases are URNs (e.g. >urn:gov:uk:egms:date) and URLs (e.g. >http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/copyrighted). In general, OASIS prefers the >use of the URN. > >However, the e-GMS is based on Dublin Core, which uses URLs to specify >metadata names. This is an extract from an email from Maewyn Cumming: > >---- >We had thought about this for the e-GMS application profile and used the >format http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/accessibility for each element, >refinement etc. This follows the Dublin Core model, and is what we have put >into the AP (though with the caveat that none of these URLS actually work >yet). I'd like to keep following the same format. >---- > >In discussion, it was agreed that a refinement would use an additional >oblique, such as http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/terms/date/created. > >This is the format to be used for e-GMS metadata but does not constrain the >format for other types of metadata. >==== > >I think this closes this topic. > > OK. You did not provide a solution to the limitation I pointed out in my past email with use of URLs (inability to handles more than 1 level of refinedments). I assume then that the risks have been considered and an informed decision has been made. Thanks. >Regards > >Paul > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] >>Sent: 18 June 2004 19:09 >>To: Egov-Registry >>Subject: Re: [egov-registry] Need for standard URI structure (Was Re: >>[egov-registry] regrep) >> >> >>Farrukh Najmi wrote: >> >> >> >>>Changing the thread title to reflect the discussion closer. >>> >>> >>>Paul Spencer wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Maewyn, >>>> >>>>For the registry, we need to describe each metadata item type with a >>>>URI. >>>>Since we currently use URLs rather than URNs in UK Gov, it might be >>>>useful >>>>if these point to a description of the item type - i.e. the relevant >>>>page of >>>>the e-GMS. This could obviously be done if the e-GMS were in HTML or >>>>XML. >>>> >>>>In anticipation that this might be done sometime, we need to >>>> >>>> >>choose some >> >> >>>>URIs. I know Adrian was looking at direct URI access to the GovTalk web >>>>site. Do we have this available? I suggest something like: >>>> >>>>http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/contributor.htm >>>>http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/coverage.htm#temporal >>>> >>>>What do you think? It is not essential to set up the ability to >>>>access these >>>>straight away - what I would like to do is set up a URI format >>>> >>>> >>that will >> >> >>>>support this in the future. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>For an example of how the URIs might be used in the registry see >>>various Slots in: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/egov-registry/downloa >> >> >d.php/7257/SubmitObjectsRequest_eGMS1.xml > > >>>and the name attribute. The current URIs are only meant to be >>>placeholders and would be replaced by whatever URI prefix(s) we agree >>>upon for the pilot. >>> >>> >>> >>Paul said in a phone call that UK gov prefer URLs to be used instead of >>URNs based upon a past decision. I would like to advocate a URN based >>approach. >> >>To understand why, consider the following URN based example: >> >><rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted" ... >> >> >>As we can see URNs fit the need very well when specifying refinement on >>a eGMS term. >> >>The URL alternative would look something like: >> >><rim:Slot >>name="http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/registry/eGMS/date.html#copyrighted"; >>... >> >>What if there was another level in future as the binding evolves? As in: >> >><rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted:uk" ... >> >> >>Vs. >> >><rim:Slot name="urn:gov:uk:egms:date:copyrighted:international" ... >> >> >>The URN based approach would handle this just fine but the URL approach >>would be tricky. >> >>Then there is also the issue of how do we make the URL resolve to some >>web page location. >> >>I really think that a URN based approach makes sense here and is also >>consistent with registry conventions. >>Can we get closure on a decision here since it prevents me from making >>progress? Thanks. >> >>-- >>Regards, >>Farrukh >> >> >> >> > > > -- Regards, Farrukh
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]