Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Nicolas LEHUEN wrote: "...I'd like to remind you that RDDL is not the only way to do this, far from it, RDF being another serious candidate. RDF is not perfect either for this purpose..." [jb] RDF, TM, XML Schema, RELAXNG, and natural language text. are all better than RDDL at describing "Resources". RDDL is _simply_ intended to serve as a mechanism that allows all the above to happily _coexist_. I believe the 'Semantic Web' will not be dicted from a single source and use a single language or protocol, rather pieces of it will spring up much as the internet itself arose from a patchwork of connected networks. RDDL is simply a 'router' that allows an intelligent machine (or human) to pick from any or all of the above ways to describe a 'resource'. ------ Human-readable documentation is another important problem, with lots of specifics consequences, amongst which the need to deal with internationalisation. Come on, you can't be serious about using xml:lang. Browsers don't support this, and the whole objective of RDDL is that by pointing my browser to a RDDL URL, I can see some documentation appear in my browser, right ? So either you tackle this problem with browser friendly solutions, or you drop the idea of stuffing ALL resources and documentation in the same document. [jb] Please solve this problem and I am more than sure that XML-DEV will be happy to modify RDDL to include this solution to the problem of internationalisation. We work with what we have. "xml:lang" is what we have. Not perfect I agree. Jonathan
|
