Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
 Eric Hanson (elh@c...) wrote: > Michael Champion (michaelc.champion@g...) wrote: > > Can you imagine standard that would meet your needs and be broad > > enough to be widely adopted across the various religious divides (WS > > vs REST, document vs data, RDF vs straight XML, etc.) in our little > > world? What would a single standard offer that the existing toolbox > > full of stuff that could be applied to this problem would not? > > IMHO, nothing would be gained from mandating any single > interface to the data. In fact I think it would be very hurtful > to limit it at all. I missed a couple of interesting points you made, sorry. Here's a little better response, hopefully. There are a bunch of issues and angles here, it's kind of complicated. WS vs REST, sorry I don't know much about WS. But if you're talking about standardizing the interface, yeah, I'd say lots of interfaces are fine, as long as there's a REST one for me to use. :-) Document vs. data, there are already some mechanisms aimed mostly at the document world that link a document related resources -- at least in a limited fashion. When a XML document links to a stylesheet or a schema in the header, that links the data to a couple of related resources. For the document world, this might be sufficient. If so, great. If not, a resource discovery infrastructure would just be another tool in the toolbox. It's important to note that a system like this wouldn't require any changes in XML at all. It just augments the architecture. XML vs RDF, there's two different angles here, whether we're talking about XML vs RDF as the data objects, or as the description of the resources. As data, the approach to RDF resource discovery is a little different then for XML. In XML, a QName serves as the unique id for a datatype, so resources should be associated with this. In RDF, things are a little fuzzier. There are a few options for representing datatypes. Two notable ones are OWL classes and RDF schemas. The unique ids for these are just URIs, no QName. XML vs RDF for resource descriptions, I think that using RDF is the right way to go for the reasons you pointed out. This is an entirely general problem that literally spans the breadth of the question "How can data be used?" Any attempts to pigeon hole this or develop a rigid silver bullet standard upper ontology would just limit the system. RDF is I think sufficiently general and extensible and after all, it is a resource description framework. :-) That said, there are a few common elements that would probably be useful across many resource types -- I think RDDL's nature and purpose are a good starting place for describing a resource. For example, when describing a XSLT that transforms a document <foo> to HTML, you could set the resource's "nature" to XSLT's URI and its "purpose" to "display"'s URI. Beyond this, the description vocabulary is specific to the type of resource. An XSL transforation like the one above would need to include the target mimetype, in this case HTML. A RELAX NG schema would have a nature/purpose of relaxNG/validate but might need another vocabulary item that says whether its in compact syntax or verbose. Etc, etc. 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
|
|||||||||
