Structure for schemas - community/descriptive vs registration/core

[jesserobertson]

@kitchenprinzessin3880 @jklump

Trying to maintain compatibility with igsn/metadata - I'm structuring the schemas under an XML and JSON namespace, with seperate registration/core metadata schemas and a set of community descriptive schemas.

Happy to be told another way is better but this means we can drop both schemas in side by side once we're happy with where we get to.

Todo:

• Add a copy of the XML schemas for refence from igsn/metadata
• Think about whether there are other simple community schemas we could create to demonstrate how this works.

[jesserobertson]

Also all of this is in the readme so hopefully that makes sense

[dr-shorthair]

When I drafted some JSON last year, I did it as JSON-LD on the basis of SOSA/SSN vocabulary.
JSON-LD is a serialization of RDF, but it is still JSON. any chance of maintaining that link?

[jesserobertson]

Yeah absolutely the aim is to support both.

JSON-LD to handle semantics, JSON Schema to handle framing of JSON documents from allocating agents (since we have to agree on that to some extent unless everyone switches to SPARQL endpoints...).

[jesserobertson]

@dr-shorthair do we already have URIs for the current IGSN registry/core metadata?