Re: RFD: contents.rdf Spec v0.1

On mardi, mars 18, 2003, at 22:34 Europe/Paris, [email protected] 
wrote:

>> 0) Note that about and resource are now rdf:about and rdf:resource, to
>> get the W3C online validator to stop complaining.
>
> +1 :)
>
>> 1) The URN scheme is now simply URLs.  It isn't worth explaining the
>> difference.  For a folder, use a URL ending in a "/".
>
> +1
>
>> 2) The URN is now the same as the source URL.  We will likely get rid
>> of the oscom:sourceurl property as it is redundant.
>
> +1
>
>> 3) Previously, the dc:creator was an rdf:resource, meaning a reference
>> to a separately-defined, globally-unique resource.  I think that's too
>> hard for servers to support right now, so simply use a string.
>
> +1
>
>> 7) dc:creator, dc:description, and dc:subject should be considered
>> optional.
>
> +1
>
>> 10) We need to have a debate about "article" vs. "document" (or
>> "page") for the name of the resourcetype across systems.
>
> getting into semantic territory here huh

Perhaps.  I'm not sure generic "content management" should be focused 
on the idea of an "article".  But it clearly appears that most OSCOM 
servers are about producing articles.

>> 11) Do we need an encoding attribute in the XML declaration?
>
> dunno
>
> its no fun if all your proposals make as much sense as they do :) +1 
> +1 +1
> lol

Heheh.

I filed a bug report yesterday regarding jslib on Windows.  I was able 
to narrow down a focused test case.

--Paul