Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Nicolas Lehuen wrote: > Yeah, that was the kind of thing I thought about in this mail : > > http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200201/msg00836.html > > but I didn't wrapped it in RDDL paper, trying to write it in RDF instead. > Yes and RDF is a perfectly acceptable way to do that. RDDL is itself built on XHTML and XLink and with respect to RDF has the same relation as XLink. Ron Daniel has written an entirely reasonable mapping from XLink to RDF (W3C Note that can be looked up) and RDDL can very easily be translated into RDF (stripping out the XHTML documentation in the process). An XSLT transform to do exactly this is references as a resource in the RDDL specification itself -- again as the RDDL spec is itself written in RDDL, "view source" is a great way to see examples of how it can be used. For many simple applications, i.e. when simple XLinks are appropriate and when there is a desire to "see" the document in a browser, RDDL fits the bill. On the other hand, it is not designed to be a general graph description language. In order to deal with general graphs, something like RDF, or Topic Maps (whose XML representation also leverages XLink) or extended XLinks/Linkbases would be much more appropriate. The advantage of RDDL is that it is really simple to parse, and that it displays in the large existing installed base of HTML browsers. Jonathan
|
