Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Nicholas, > >But anyway, I think there are two problems that RDDL try to > >solve in the > >same document and that should be separated : resource linking and > >human-readable documentation. > > And once again, RDDL try to solve it the wrong way, by its assumption that > resource description and linking has something to do with namespaces. Don't get caught up in the term "Resource". I am sorry that it is used, but so be it. I am not sure that the term "Resource" has any real meaning, but it is thrown about on the Web. Note that the RFC 2396 (URI) usage of the term "Resource" means anything that has a URI. Namespaces are named using URIs hence the term "Resource". There is nothing other to read into this. RDDL does not intend to be RDF. >If > RDDL was NDL (Namespace Description Language), there would be no problem. > You would describe namespaces and link to resources to those namespaces. But > as I wrote earlier, I don't think that RDDL is appropriate to handle > resources that contain mixed namespaces. > What do you mean by "appropriate"? If somewhat writes a software program in Java that processes mixed namespaces, would that be "appropriate"? Either it can or cannot be done. Henry has shown that it can be done. Simple. "Appropriate"ness has no bearing. What is the real issue?
|
