[esip-semanticweb] [Esip-federatedsearch] ESIP namespace definitions

[savoie at nsidc.org]

Chris (et al.):

I'm a little confused by this proposal and it may be entirely due do my
experience level or the fact that I wasn't at the recent meeting, so
please bear with me.

Are you proposing defining the namespace declaration for a set of
cross-ESIP extensions to OpenSearch?  Something along the lines of the
geo and time extensions to OS.

How many different namespaces would there need to be?  I would have
assumed we could get away with one namespace for the extension and then
defined withing that extension the pieces we needed.

So something like: 

http://esipfed.org/federatedsearch/1.0/ 

would be all that was necessary to describe the extensions that we are
using.  

So I may be missing the point completely since I'm not sure what
"machine tagging of WMS capabilities documents" actually means.


But if I am off base completely, I would suggest a version number in the
namespace at the very least.

Cheers,
Matt 





Christopher Lynnes <Chris.Lynnes at nasa.gov> writes:

> We are now beginning to actually implement cross-ESIP applications that have
> need of namespace declarations, specfically:
> o  Federated search
> o  Machine tagging of WMS capabilities documents
> I believe there are some semantic web applications that are not too far
> behind...
>
> Given that permanence is a desirable feature of namespace declarations, I
> would like to propose we settle on a definition scheme  that can be
> implemented soon, but which we expect to be stable.
>
> I would like to suggest we use a scheme like:
> http://esipfed.org/ns/foo/bar
>
> where
> o  http is the scheme
> o  esipfed.org is the authority
> o  ns indicates that it is a namespace
> o  foo/bar is a hierarchical path
>
> Examples of foo might be:
> o  fedsearch
> o  scast (for servicecasting)
> o  datatypes
>
> So for example, to uniquely identify a URI as refering to a URL to a browse
> image (useful for typing in Federated Search) responses), we  might have:
>
> http://esipfed.org/ns/fedsearch/browseImage
>
> One minor downside to this scheme is that it is often useful, but not
> required, to put an informational document, such as a schema document,  at the
> URI.  Brian, would this be feasible?  Again, I don't believe it  is required
> for a namespace URI.
>
> Any counter-proposals?
> --
> Christopher Lynnes             NASA/GSFC, Code 610.2         301-614-5185
>
> _______________________________________________
> Esip-federatedsearch mailing list
> Esip-federatedsearch at lists.esipfed.org
> http://www.lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-federatedsearch
>
>

-- 
Matthew Savoie  -  Scientific Programmer
National Snow and Ice Data Center
(303) 735-0785   http://nsidc.org