Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDDL and user interface
 Eric Hanson wrote: > Jonathan Borden (jonathan@o...) wrote: >> >> RDDL provides *a* solution to this problem, namely that you resolve >> the >> namespace URI, get back a representation (document) and this tells you >> something about the namespace. >> >> An RDF triple store might provide, assuming some things were worked >> out, a different mechanism for finding out about a namespace URI e.g. >> a >> triple store might contain various triples that reference the URI. > > Before deciding on RDF or any other data format, I think it's > important to figure out the structure of a resource description. > If a resource can be sufficiently described using a tree > structure, forcing users to author it in a graph language would > be IMHO a big mistake. I used the phrase "RDF triple store" rather than simply "RDF" for the specific reason that I am not talking about the RDF syntax, or RDF documents, rather the result of parsing perhaps many documents into triples. > > I have a lot of thoughts about RDF and why I think many of the > benefits of RDF can be achieved in a simpler and more elegant > fashion using plain XML with schema languages that lend > themselves to extensibility, but I'll try to avoid that rant for > as long as possible :) > >> If you read through the xml-dev archives, we had very early on >> considered including a mime-type property -- actually this was my >> initial suggestion, but then we decided this was redundant -- the >> nature can serve as a URI encoding of a mime-type as is described in >> the RDDL document. > > This is the mime type of the resource itself, no? In the case > of a transformation, there is a second mime type for the results > of the transformation. This I guess should be refered to as > "target mime type", not just mime type. I am just saying that for any mime-type e.g. text/plain you can generate a URI as is described in RDDL 6.1. YMMV > >> A key, perhaps *the* only unique characteristic of RDDL is that it is >> intended to be human readable. If you drop the requirement for human >> readability RDDL is an utter waste of time, and you'd be far better of >> using RDF directly. > > But there's still a spec here to be written. Even if RDF was > decided upon, there has to be some kind of standardized way to > describe resources beyond anyone can say anything about > anything. I suppose that if you are simply looking to use nature and purpose you can simply use rddl:nature and rddl:purpose as a simple vocabulary. Indeed take a look at RDDL2: http://www.rddl.org/rddl2 > > I like RDDL as a starting place, but maybe what I'd like to see > is some kind of sister spec for non-human-readable RDDL. Aha. If you are looking to develop a *non* human readable format then we are at a sharp point of divergence. Jonathan 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
