Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

resolve type, enum URIs to schema definitions #87

Open
stoicflame opened this issue Oct 5, 2011 · 4 comments
Open

resolve type, enum URIs to schema definitions #87

stoicflame opened this issue Oct 5, 2011 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@stoicflame
Copy link
Member

Do the work to ensure that the URIs used for each type and enum definition actually resolve to their defining schema.

For example a request to http://gedcomx.org/Adoption should provide the schema that defines that type.

@jralls
Copy link
Contributor

jralls commented May 5, 2013

An interesting idea, but I think it's less important after #249.

Anyway, what kind of "schema"? An XML Schema? A JSON Schema? Some other sort of description that can be converted into either as appropriate?

@stoicflame
Copy link
Member Author

When I wrote it up, I was thinking the RDF schema. We'd want to provide a nice HTML representation of it, though, for folks who get there via web browser.

@jralls
Copy link
Contributor

jralls commented May 13, 2013

OK. I guess that you mean to specify what other elements are necessary to fully describe an Event or Fact of a particular type.

@stoicflame
Copy link
Member Author

Quick update on this: I've provided redirects at the identifiers for the specifications. There's a bug at the moment in the DNS records that should get fixed soon. But, for example, this URI:

http://gedcomx.org/file/v1

Will soon be redirecting you to:

https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/blob/master/specifications/file-format-specification.md

I'm still leaving this open until we get a more robust solution to redirect the enumerated values, too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants