Resource Gloss (Human Readable)

[Jeff Rafter <jeffrafter@earthlink.net>]

Apologies for the late entry into the discussion (but honestly I have read
the whole thread).  The only response to the question of whether or not the
format *should* be human readable was a quick flame.  As an end-user looking
from the outside in-- it would seem much more logical to include a human
readable description of a resource simply within the catalog (used loosely)
of associated resources rather than making the document itself readable.

As Simon St. Laurent put it :

>Sounds good.  I've got a slightly lighter suggestion.  The document at the
>namespace URI could be any well-formed XML, but the only content in it
>which matters for purposes of automated processing is simple XLinks

I fully agree.  I think the new spec would be somewhat simpler (and
therefore more focused) if human readable display was left out in favor of
having it be yet another reference.  Not to say that human readable is
unimportant-- all of my schemas have a human readable format alongside-- I
just think it would better serve automation purposes to have it as a
reference.  For those who wanted something more-- a simple xsl
transformation of the directory/gloss/? might suffice?

I think that the spec(s) being produced are excellent-- I just don't know if
I am ready to or think it is appropriate to go back and redo all of my
documentation in XHTML.

Regards,
Jeff Rafter
Defined Systems