[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: RDDL and siteData-36

• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,"Joe Gregorio" <joe@b...>
• Subject: RE: RDDL and siteData-36
• From: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@v...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 20:43:11 +0200
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <3F8F361E.9080700@t...>
• Reply-to: <danny666@v...>

> There's nothing built in.  Dave Winer et al are proposing OPML for this
> purpose because it's hierarchical.  So instead of a ton of pointers in
> the RDDL, you'd have one, to the OPML doc.
>
> > 3. Going back to Tim's initial proposal, are there
> >    any thoughts on what that
> >    "small (but extensible) RDF vocabulary" would look like?
>
> I'm beginning to think RDDL is just the ticket for this. -Tim

A deeply hierarchical system strikes me as being potentially problematic for
this, in that there would be dependencies running from root to leaf. For a
big site I think this could be a pain to maintain, especially if the site
wasn't organized in a hierarchy itself. On the other hand I can certainly
imagine a bunch of RDF files acting as a very shallow hierarchy, each file
containing a bunch of statements that would (apart from the references
between these files) be completely independent of each other. Hopefully a
half-decent RDF store would be able to work on the liddle-biddy RDF
statements as a cohesive whole when required.

Assuming we don't want a single site-wide metadata file, how would you
picture the RDDL data being distributed - shallow tree again? Or perhaps a
single root RDDL file would distribute its 'payload' amongst a bunch of RDF
(or even OPML) files?

Cheers,
Danny.

• References:
  • Re: RDDL and siteData-36
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• Next by Date: [OT] how much data in xml-dev?
• Previous by thread: Re: RDDL and siteData-36
• Next by thread: Re: RDDL and siteData-36
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread