[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
- From: Jason Diamond <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:36:51 -0800
> 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
> 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).