[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 10:21, Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
> Any composite document is orphan with regards to RDDL. So is it an
> interesting resource description language ? I don't think so.
Processors can load multiple RDDL documents as necessary for the
namespaces contained in a document. Is the algorithmic work difficult
when the particular schemas for each namespace don't support any notion
of modularization? Sure. Is that RDDL's problem? I don't think it can
be RDDL's problem, nor do I think there's a good way to resolve those
issues through RDDL itself.
On the other hand, I hope the existence of RDDL gets people out of the
notion that a namespace is a complete vocabulary and drives them to
design tools - schemas, software, whatever - that are capable of working
in composite document environments. We need those, RDDL or not, and
their development will enhance RDDL as well.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
