[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: RDF? TM? (was Re: Didier's lab report)
> You now Uche what could be very useful? it is to have the possibility to > inherit the capabilities of an rdf: description. For instance, just imagine > for a moment that you want to encode a list of resources pertinent to a > topic, get this topic to be potentially used as a link and as a RDF > description. Said differently used as a link and as a frame. In that case, I > may get an element to inherit from both the xlink and the RDF capabilities > some thing like: > > <netfolder xlink:type="extended" xlink:title="my title" > rdf:type="a_file_system_folder"> > <resource xlink:type="locator" rdf:type="a_resource" > xlink:title="mydoc.xml"> > <author>Uche Ogbuji</author> > <modified> dec 14 2000, 11:01AM</modified> > <MIME-type>text/xml<MIME-type> > ... other properties ..... > </resource> > <resource xlink:type="locator" rdf:type="a_resource" > xlink:title="Anotherdoc.xml"> > <author>Didier PH Martin</author> > <modified> dec 14 2000, 10:01AM</modified> > <MIME-type>text/xml<MIME-type> > ... other properties ..... > </resource> > </netfolder> > > What we would have now would be something that could potentially be > processed by an xlink processor and something which can potentially be > processed by an RDF processor. Note that the link now becomes a smart link > containing meta data about the resource referred by it. In the Antique > Greece I would have gone to the temple and ask the gods to get some good > sense and help us poor xml developers to bring us some good and useful > stuff. In the modern times I have to ask the same thing to the modern > gods... the W3C consortium :-)) And you know what is even funnier? my > outlook spell checker want to change the word W3C by WACO :-))) I just hope you're not mistaking me for anyone in the W3C. I'm just a lowly developer as you are. > Seriously, it would help tremendously if the rdf capabilities could be > inherited like the linking capabilities are. This would turn links into > smart links. So in the example above, an rdf interpreter would know that a > <resource> element is an rdf description - would know that it is about the > resource identified by xlink:href. This implies that an RDF processor has to > be aware that any href with or without a namespace prefix is a reference to > a resource (href seems to be a de facto way to refer to a resource in > several SGML or XML based languages). Then finally, an RDF processor would > know that the children are to be properties. Obviously the rule would be > that only properties could be set as child of a description. Otherwise, we > would have to use namespaces to differentiate the properties and the > non-properties. This could work but wouldn't improve the document's > readability. I agree that some aspects of RDF's heavy reliance on namespaces can be a weakness. But I want to point out that although the solution does impair readability, I think it's still a valid solution. Besides, if you don't mind one level of additional processing, it's quite easy to embed the rules about the non-differentiated properties into an attendant stylesheet. In fact, the product I work on, 4Suite Server, provides a mechanism for establishing RDF metadata from arbitrary XML using rules encoded with XPath. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
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
|