Re: RDDL and user interface
Jonathan Borden (jonathan@o...) wrote: > > It's a complex problem that tries to take into account all the > > ways an instance can be used! Such is the nature of > > generalization...less than trivial, and I sure don't have it > > figured out. > > 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 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. So the only use of target mime type that I can think of is with transformations. There surely are other properties that would describe resources of a certain nature but not be appropriate for other natured resources. It lends itself to greater granularity beyond nature and purpose: All resources have a nature and a purpose, but beyond that maybe the structure of descriptions should be tailored to resources of that nature. > 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 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. Also, if an RDDL doc is decoupled from the namespace URI, yet still expected to be associated with it, it's no longer just a resource directory description. It's a resource directory description /about a namespace/, and it has to include the namespace as part of the doc's data. So maybe it's a different spec all together. Eric
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