Jonathan Borden wrote:
> After alot of useful discussion on the TAG, it has been pointed out  to 
> me that some of the URIs that we originally selected for RDDL  natures 
> don't make sense. In particular we were using namespace URIs  as the 
> RDDL natures of things whereas the RDDL nature of something is  really a 
> class or group that it belongs to.
> 
> In response to the TAG request I've updated http://www.rddl.org/ natures 
> to deprecate the old nature URIs and suggest new URIs. This  is all of 
> the form:
> 
> For XML Schema (the archetypical example):
> 
> (old nature) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> 
> (new nature) http://www.rddl.org/natures#XMLSchema

I wonder why not use a more abstract level, say simply :
http://www.rddl.org/natures#Schema
which could be used for DTD, W3C XML Schema, Relax NG or other schema

What is found within will tell which one is used.

Moreover, what would happened if I put some Schematron assertions inside 
a W3C XML Schema ?

This is the same with catalogs :
http://www.rddl.org/natures#Catalog
would suit to SGML catalogs, OASIS catalogs, and others

IMHO, it is more close to the idea that a resource belongs to a class or 
group.

I noticed in RDDL some assertions that are very discutable :
http://www.rddl.org/purposes/
Section "Schema related purposes / Validation"
-I could validate a document with a DTD after parsing it, even if the 
document doesn't refer to it (example : because I need to perform 
XInclusion before the validation)
-Schema validation can be also combined with the parse phase.

-- 
Cordialement,

               ///
              (. .)
  --------ooO--(_)--Ooo--------
|      Philippe Poulard       |
  -----------------------------
  http://reflex.gforge.inria.fr/
        Have the RefleX !