[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Both of these are interesting directions to take RDDL in.
At 09:49 17/01/2002 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>If one is willing to accept that there may possibly be value in having
>mixed human/machine-readable content at the end of a namespace-URI, RDDL
>looks like a pretty good tool.
>
>There was some discussion at XML 2001 about ways to improve RDDL, and
>they seemed to come from two related directions:
>
>1) Creating clusters of resources rather than a flat list
This is very interesting - would these resources be clustered around
something (the name-space as an abstract concept, for example).
IMHO, this is eminently do-able with Topic Maps...
>2) Describing sequences for resource processing to define pipelines
Equally do-able with topic maps.
>In some ways these are the same thing, just with sequence mattering in
>the second version.
>
>I think it's roughly possible to do these using current RDDL syntax, but
>I suspect it might be worth some further exploration of how best to make
>these work. Number 2 in particular could take RDDL much deeper into
>computer interactions than has typically been the case so far.
>
>Thoughts?
I would just be interested to hear if RDDL developers considered and
discarded the possibility of creating a set of Published Subject Indicators
for a topic map-based solution (with the associated semantics) and if so,
why ? One potential advantage in this approach is that later changes would
not require additional syntax - just new PSIs and more semantics.
Cheers,
Kal
-----------------------------------------------
Kal Ahmed
XML Consultant, Techquila.com
e: kal@techquila.com
h: http://www.techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
|
