RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
> You now Uche what could be very useful? it is to have the possibility to > inherit the capabilities of an rdf: description. For instance, just imagine > for a moment that you want to encode a list of resources pertinent to a > topic, get this topic to be potentially used as a link and as a RDF > description. Said differently used as a link and as a frame. In that case, I > may get an element to inherit from both the xlink and the RDF capabilities > some thing like: > > <netfolder xlink:type="extended" xlink:title="my title" > rdf:type="a_file_system_folder"> > <resource xlink:type="locator" rdf:type="a_resource" > xlink:title="mydoc.xml"> > <author>Uche Ogbuji</author> > <modified> dec 14 2000, 11:01AM</modified> > <MIME-type>text/xml<MIME-type> > ... other properties ..... > </resource> > <resource xlink:type="locator" rdf:type="a_resource" > xlink:title="Anotherdoc.xml"> > <author>Didier PH Martin</author> > <modified> dec 14 2000, 10:01AM</modified> > <MIME-type>text/xml<MIME-type> > ... other properties ..... > </resource> > </netfolder> > > What we would have now would be something that could potentially be > processed by an xlink processor and something which can potentially be > processed by an RDF processor. Note that the link now becomes a smart link > containing meta data about the resource referred by it. In the Antique > Greece I would have gone to the temple and ask the gods to get some good > sense and help us poor xml developers to bring us some good and useful > stuff. In the modern times I have to ask the same thing to the modern > gods... the W3C consortium :-)) And you know what is even funnier? my > outlook spell checker want to change the word W3C by WACO :-))) I just hope you're not mistaking me for anyone in the W3C. I'm just a lowly developer as you are. > Seriously, it would help tremendously if the rdf capabilities could be > inherited like the linking capabilities are. This would turn links into > smart links. So in the example above, an rdf interpreter would know that a > <resource> element is an rdf description - would know that it is about the > resource identified by xlink:href. This implies that an RDF processor has to > be aware that any href with or without a namespace prefix is a reference to > a resource (href seems to be a de facto way to refer to a resource in > several SGML or XML based languages). Then finally, an RDF processor would > know that the children are to be properties. Obviously the rule would be > that only properties could be set as child of a description. Otherwise, we > would have to use namespaces to differentiate the properties and the > non-properties. This could work but wouldn't improve the document's > readability. I agree that some aspects of RDF's heavy reliance on namespaces can be a weakness. But I want to point out that although the solution does impair readability, I think it's still a valid solution. Besides, if you don't mind one level of additional processing, it's quite easy to embed the rules about the non-differentiated properties into an attendant stylesheet. In fact, the product I work on, 4Suite Server, provides a mechanism for establishing RDF metadata from arbitrary XML using rules encoded with XPath. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format