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

Note that this file is a suggested list of RDDL Natures and one may  
always choose and use RDDL Natures not in this file (i.e. it was  
never intended to be the only place a RDDL Nature could be defined).  
Consequently if you wish to keep on using the old Nature URIs that is  
up to y'all but after thinking about this for a long time, and after  
talking to a bunch of smart people, I have become convinced that the  
TAG is correct on this issue.

The old file is at: http://www.rddl.org/natures-old

*Also* people should have a look at http://www.rddl.org/20050704/ for  
a look at what we are proposing as a new version of RDDL  -- it is  
intended to be backward compatible with the current RDDL, but also  
allows the form <a rddl:purpose="..."  rddl:nature="..."> instead of  
the <rddl:resource> form which uses XLink. In the tradition of RDDL I  
am hoping to get a final version of this out soon, so comments are  
welcome for folks who haven't seen this yet.

I am sending this as seperate messages to both XML-DEV and WWW-TAG to  
avoid crossposting when replying.

Jonathan