Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'd prefer a convention based on the URL type in combination with a repository
similar to UDDI and web services. For instance namespaces that have URI's that
begin with "xmlns://" can be submitted to a registrar where their
document/resources (maybe even RDDL files) are passed along to node operators
who replicate the data across several nodes at regular intervals.
Then there are several interfaces to retrieving the metadata about the
namespace from special search engines on websites to programmatic interfaces
that communicate via web services, etc. Also subsets of the metadataa can be
requested either just the human readable stuff or the aspects of the data that
are important for machine processing.
Of course, this may turn out to be more complex than RDDL to implement but may
be somewhat more useful for end users.
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #49
If I learn the whereabouts of the one artifact which can destroy me, I
will not send all my troops out to seize it. Instead I will send them
out to seize something else and quietly put a Want-Ad in the local paper.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Greif" <email@example.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)
> I was attempting to make a pragmatic point, not a criticism of the RDDL
> language. If I deference a namespace URI and find nothing, I don't know
> whether it was intended by the doc author that there be nothing there, or
> there was supposed to be something there but the URI had a typo. If the
> host mentioned in that namespace URI is down and I'm hoping to find, say, a
> collection of stylesheet resources, or a jar file to use to process the
> original document, I don't know whether to try again later or look somewhere
> else. If I never dereference the namespace URI, I won't know what useful
> things I might have missed. That's why I'd like to know whether to expect
> to find something or not, perhaps by some additional attributes, by some
> convention involving the URI type, or something else.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com>
> To: "Jeff Greif" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Leigh Dodds"
> <email@example.com>; "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDDL (was RE: [xml-dev] Negotiate Out The Noise)
> > Jeff Greif wrote:
> > > The unfortunate problem with RDDL and all the alternatives except (1) is
> > > that you cannot tell without looking whether there will be something at
> > > NS URI, and if there is, whether you need to know about it.
> > Suppose you simply decide never to dereference a URI regardless of what it
> > looks like. How does the existence of a document which _can_ be
> > affect your life? As has already been said, you can always use google.
> > Indeed a tenet of the RDF framework is that URIs are opaque. One derives
> > properties of a resource by what is said "about" the resource, not by
> > dereferencing its URI. One never _has_ to dereference a URI to use RDF.
> > does one have to dereference a namespace URI _ever_ if all one want to do
> > use XML namespaces as a way to disambiguate element names. What could you
> > "need to know about"?
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com