Duplicate

Bug #1462

Should subjectIndicatorRef and resourceRef be reintroduced?

Added by Lars Marius Garshol over 2 years ago. Updated over 2 years ago.

Status:Closed Start date:2009-10-20
Priority:Normal Due date:
Assignee:Lars Marius Garshol % Done:

0%
Category:-
Target version:-

Description

Lars Heuer writes:

Further, I think it was a mistake to remove the possibility to
reference a topic by its subject identifier / subject locator. In XTM
1.0 we have the possibility to reference a topic by its subject
identifier / subject locator, while XTM 2.0 enforces (again) item
identifiers.

Original posting: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/2009-September/004251.html

History

#1
Updated by Lars Heuer over 2 years ago

I'd prefer "subjectIdentifierRef" and "subjectLocatorRef" since they are closer to TMDM and the purpose of these elements would be more obvious.
What's the rationale behind reintroducing the XTM 1.0 legacy elements?

#2
Updated by Lars Marius Garshol over 2 years ago

Lars Heuer schrieb:

I'd prefer "subjectIdentifierRef" and "subjectLocatorRef" since they are closer to TMDM and the purpose of these elements would be more obvious.

I would, too.

What's the rationale behind reintroducing the XTM 1.0 legacy elements?

None. I just put misleading text into the title by mistake. :-)

#3
Updated by X B over 2 years ago

I'm in favour of the fix suggested in http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/xtm-2.1-issues.pdf.

#4
Updated by Lars Marius Garshol over 2 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Closed
  • Assignee set to Lars Marius Garshol

The Leipzig meeting approved this proposal, and it has now been incorporated in the spec.

Duplicate

Also available in: Atom PDF