RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Yes.  Or FPI, or the things at the ends of the 
arrows that enter the top of IDEF definitions: aka, controls.

In each case, a record of authority governs some 
process or declaration.  It doesn't matter if it is 
the same document or a copy as long as it can be 
proven to be an exact copy.  That means another process, 
and another control, and so on to exhaustion.  The 
trick is to bound that so one doesn't burn down the 
network chasing definitions.  The next trick is to 
enable a variant where local conditions need local 
controls but function in situ as if they were the 
original authority so are delegates.  Usually, a  
certificate of delegation is the proof (sometimes known 
as a waiver).   Poof!  RDDL gets another resource 
and role to play.

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:28 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: How could RDDL be distributed ?


At 04:01 PM 16/01/01 +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
>Actually I think it's simply two different problems which might
>have related solutions,
>
>1. Allow for local overriding of authoritative resources.
>
>2. Allow for distribution and replication of authoritative
>   resources.

Neither of which are specific to RDDL.  I assume everyone
agrees with this.  In the general case, these are just 
consequences of dealing with URIs, n'est-ce pas? -T