>>> [log in to unmask] 2004-10-20 21:24:16 >>>
> it's easier for a human to key
> <typeOfResource>cartographic</typeOfResource>
> than
> and at some point, regardless of the magic of UIs, humans will have
> key these things.

    Copy and paste.  I generate all my XML with a text editor (or
XSLT), and even in the absence of long URIs it greatly reduces tedium
and errors to make templates of frequently used structures and have them
open in a separate editor window to copy from.

> In other words, there may be some advantages for machine processing
> I want to know how this eliminates the human-readable list that will
> needed for input. And as we know, keeping two versions of the same
> is fraught with perils.

    Maintain only the machine-readable list, from which the
human-readable list can be algorithmically generated.

> I'm also not sure that having the info URI makes
> adding to the list any easier. What we do seem to be doing is trading
> URI for a list for a URI for each element of the list.

    It makes the RDF folks happy.  And URIs beyond the info variety can
make "type" and "authority" attributes more than just wishful thinking,
    <subject authority="">
A validation process could check that "widgets" really is an
authoritative subject in the linked authority file (presuming greater
MODS-MADS interaction once MADS is out of its draft stage, anyway).
In some cases they might even do away with type attributes altogether,
rather than
    <identifier type="issn">0000-0000</identifier>
They help make documents more self-describing, e.g. the Dublin core
URIs that point to RDF descriptions of their usage.  The "widgets"
example above could make the topic a hyperlink, on display, to the
authority record.