Re: Proposal for JTM 1.1

Hi Jan,

[...]
> [2] http://www.semanticheadache.com/2010/09/proposal-for-jtm-11.html

Although I agree that we don't need more Topic Maps syntaxes, I think
your proposal makes sense.

An additional to shorten JTM topic maps further:

Make the XSD prefix implicit. Once we had the same in CTM but it was
rejected. I still think that XSD is important enough to steal the
prefix "xsd" from the user space and bind it to
<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>

So, a serializer / user may write:

    [...]
    "occurrences":[
        {"value":"2005",
         "type":"si:[t:publication-year]",
         "datatype": "[xsd:gYear]"}]

without having defined the prefix "xsd".

It would be an error if a user tries to bind "xsd" to any other IRI
than <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine