Learn how easy it is to sync an existing GitHub or Google Code repo to a SourceForge project! See Demo
Found on occupation@scheme
The full link is http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/current/ns-sec/
I must be missing something here -- in the spec for <occupation>, the value for @scheme in the examples clearly shows the full URL, both in the current version of the Guidelines and in the latest dev build:
I do notice that there are two almost identical examples, though -- one of those should be changed. Peter, can you clarify the problem you saw?
The web site of the ONS seems to have changed, and seems to offer now just an Excel spreadsheet with all the codes. We'll have to find another example
Frankly, this @scheme and @code thing is mad. The description says @scheme must point to a <taxonomy> element, and @code must point to a category. Since both are data.pointer, that means (in effect) pointing at an ID, so why would we point to an ID inside something with an ID? Its redundant.
This thing needs a rethink, and allow @scheme to point externally, as it was trying to do when pointing at ONS
This ticket (originally) complains that the particular URL we used in an example is no longer working, so if there is anything wrong here it's a consequence of the sad fact that links decay: we should probably use a ficitious example instead. @scheme is defined as data.URI so I don't understand why Sebastian is claiming it cannot point externally. The wording might make clearer that the scheme might indicate a <taxonomy> defined somewhere else I suppose. I don't see why it's "mad" to supply a pointer both for the scheme and for the code (either of them might be one of those weirdo URN: thingies after all) but that's not what this ticket is about.
if you have a pointer to a <category>, its a pointer to a unique <category> (wherever that is in the universe). why does it help you to _also_ say how to get to the <taxonomny> parent of that <taxonomy>? it would only make sense where the category pointer was to be regarded as relative to the taxonomy, but thats not what we say. If the pointer on category is relative, its relative to the document.
seriously, this is irrational and confused. its like pointing to http://www.example.com/foo.xml#bar, and then saying its in http://www.example.com/ -
its completely redundant.
The point is that both @scheme and @code are optional. So you may supply only one or the other, or neither. The examples need to be sorted out. The example citing a broken link should be improved. The target of @scheme should be a taxonomy but not necessarily a <taxonomy>.
The broken link issue appears to have been fixed by Sebastian in rev 10399 (he replaced external URIs with fictional fragment identifiers), so I'm closing this ticket.