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

RE: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit

• From: Jason Diamond <jason@i...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@c...>
• Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:36:51 -0800

Hi.

> So, maybe
>
>  role= required canonical name for what kind type of thing it is, like
>        Henry says; we still provide a list of them in rddl.org/roles.html

The list in roles.html isn't intended to be the authoritative list, is it?
So no resources will be defined there? I would think that the xlink:role
could contain any URI reference regardless of whether it appeares in
roles.html.

>
>  arcrole= optional user-provided selector, also a URI, RDDL doesn't
>           provide any help here.

I would suggest that the arcrole be required and that RDDL possibly could
help here. In order to use a resource, we have to know what type of resource
it is (identified by its xlink:role) and in what context it's supposed to be
used (identified by its xlink:arcrole). RDDL could define well-known
arcroles much like it does now (with the exception that the arcroles should
define a usage context rather than type).

Jason.

• References:
  • Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Schemas and entities (was "And the DTD says, "I'm NOT dead yet!!")
• Next by Date: RE: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
• Next by thread: RE: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread