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

Re: RDDL and user interface

eric hanson target
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

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.



Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.