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

RE: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-sc hema)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: "Simon \"St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 11:31:25 -0500

RDDL is a pack o' XLinks.  It's a good idea and well done 
but not a core piece.  It is an application language that 
one may adopt to align pieces just as one might learn 
Topic Maps.  But learn XLinks first and then RDDL/Topic Maps.  
That is what I mean by moving parts. Write a RDDL if 
you need one.  Write a Topic Map if you need one.  

Yet the core of web is interoperation.  The core set 
of specs must define that without which interoperability 
is impossible and no more.  Then layer on whatever is 
needed to do other tasks.

The core set should be the first thing one want to 
master and I have to wonder if RDF is a core piece 
or yet another application language for knowledge 
base work.  UML is pushed into being a tool for 
those who want to design OOP systems.  Ok, but if 
one is not required to design OOP, it isn't core. 

For what kind of system is RDF preferred?  To me, 
it looks like any system that needs a spec'd knowledge 
base (in the olde AI/Prolog sense of the word).  It's 
a very useful thing.   When do I need RDDL?  Is the 
answer, when reading an XML document that has a 
namespace reference, I can go to identified location 
and find all the pieces I need to interpret that? 
Then RDDL is a catalog of relationships among 
components of some system.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon "St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]


On 30 May 2001 10:55:34 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> I have before.  We are staring into UML, RDF, Topic Maps, 
> XML Schemas, now add RDDL, TREX, RELAX, etc.   It isn't that any tool 
> or method alone is hard to grasp, it is the relationships 
> among them and how to choose when one is best.  In other 
> words, if we dare to do less, we should use less maybe. 
> 
> But put it altogether and I think interoperability becomes 
> a statistical guess.  Too many casually aligned parts.

RDDL does at least provide an opportunity to gather the rest of the
parts and make their alignment explicit.

For a nice example, see the RDDL spec itself:
http://rddl.org

How well the rest of the parts are actually aligned is up to their
creators, of course.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>

• Prev by Date: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Next by Date: RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema
• Previous by thread: Capturing Value From XML schema
• Next by thread: Re: meta-specs (was RE: A few things I noticed about w3c's xml-schema)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread