Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
This sounds very interesting to me. I've been thinking along the same lines for the tool I am experimenting with. Do you have any pointers to resources on the web discussing any of these ideas? Currently, the approach I'm thinking of trying is to use a linkbase with RDDL-like constructs in extended links. Every namespace known by the workspace would have a corresponding extended link in the linkbase. The extended link could have just one outbound link to an RDDL resource, but could also have additional locators and arcs associating the locators with the namespace. Thus, a user could add additional resources to a namepace within the workspace beyond those in the RDDL resource on the net (or they can add resources even in the case where there is no RDDL resource at the end of the namespace URI). The other thought I was going to explore is to use extended links to describe a processing pipeline (e.g. an XSLT transformation). The extended link would have inbound arcs for the endpoint(s), and outbound arcs for each resource required for the processing (e.g. source document, template). There could also be a local resource for template parameters. Within the workspace, when the user selects an endpoint resource, the workspace matches it up with the inbound links in the linkbase, and the UI clearly indicates to the user it is an endpoint and allows the user to refresh its contents. Thats the idea, anyway. If there are materials discussing such approaches, or alternative approaches to accomplishing these things, I'd be very interested. -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent To: xml-dev@l... Cc: jborden@m... Sent: 1/17/02 6:49 AM Subject: RDDL possibilities If one is willing to accept that there may possibly be value in having mixed human/machine-readable content at the end of a namespace-URI, RDDL looks like a pretty good tool. There was some discussion at XML 2001 about ways to improve RDDL, and they seemed to come from two related directions: 1) Creating clusters of resources rather than a flat list 2) Describing sequences for resource processing to define pipelines In some ways these are the same thing, just with sequence mattering in the second version. I think it's roughly possible to do these using current RDDL syntax, but I suspect it might be worth some further exploration of how best to make these work. Number 2 in particular could take RDDL much deeper into computer interactions than has typically been the case so far. Thoughts?
|
