Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 10:21, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote: > Any composite document is orphan with regards to RDDL. So is it an > interesting resource description language ? I don't think so. Processors can load multiple RDDL documents as necessary for the namespaces contained in a document. Is the algorithmic work difficult when the particular schemas for each namespace don't support any notion of modularization? Sure. Is that RDDL's problem? I don't think it can be RDDL's problem, nor do I think there's a good way to resolve those issues through RDDL itself. On the other hand, I hope the existence of RDDL gets people out of the notion that a namespace is a complete vocabulary and drives them to design tools - schemas, software, whatever - that are capable of working in composite document environments. We need those, RDDL or not, and their development will enhance RDDL as well. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
|
