Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
 Eric Hanson wrote: > > It seems to me that RDDL is designed to do something, and I'm > trying to use it to do something else entirely. Just to recap, > and correct me if I got anything wrong here, but: > > RDDL doesn't mandate the way that resources are described, where > with Typekit, developing a standard is precisely the point of > the spec. We are trying to be flexible because we can't foresee all the ways that people might want to describe namespaces. Perhaps RDDL doesn;t capture every way of describing a namespace but hopefully it fits the ol' 80/20 point. > > RDDL is human readable, but for Typekit's uses, human > readability is totally pointless. The semantic web folks often describe the current web as the human readable web and the semantic web as a machine readable web. RDDL is an explicit attempt to do both. Having been a sometimes card carrying semantic web guy (and man enough to admit this on xml-dev :-) I actually do see the value in human readability... this is one of the big benefits of XML in the first place. In any case RDF/XML is also considers human readability as totally pointless, and there is a good amount of software that does stuff with RDF/XML so I'm not sure that we need more ways of describing resources in ways that humans can't read. You might have more luck talking to the semantic web folks, but I should warn you that RDF/XML is often somewhat of a religion over there and they will likely see typelit as just YAARXS (Yet Another Alternative RDF/XML Syntax). Of course there are a good number of semantic web folks who actually hate RDF/XML but that's generally because its XML and they would either like to see the web evolve toward N3 (TimBLs alternative RDF syntax) or just use s-expressions like any real computer scientist ought to be doing. I should warn you that these folks have had the opportunity to sharply hone their opinions over many decades, and you are unlikely to sway them. ... > >> From my perspective, nature and purpose have a general > usefulness that extends beyond the scope of RDDL. How about > abstracting these from RDDL and making them the basis of a > stand-alone way of describing resources that support XML data? > > The first acronym that comes to mind for this is, well, RDF. :-) > Which makes me think I'm trying to reinvent a wheel here without > knowing it. If so, someone place club me with the clue stick, > but as far as I can tell, this isn't what RDF does. > Well RDF isn't human readable and it does describe resources, and splinter specs such as RDFS and OWL allow you to specify vocabularies in ways that actual software can process. Of course it's probably more complicated that what you want, but so is the English language... and just like the English language it is being used ... actually if we use this analogy, RDF is more like ... say Belgian, but nonetheless it does have a population :-) 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
|
|||||||||
