[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
> Yeah, that was the kind of thing I thought about in this mail :
>
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200201/msg00836.html
>
> but I didn't wrapped it in RDDL paper, trying to write it in RDF instead.
>
Yes and RDF is a perfectly acceptable way to do that. RDDL is itself built
on XHTML and XLink and with respect to RDF has the same relation as XLink.
Ron Daniel has written an entirely reasonable mapping from XLink to RDF (W3C
Note that can be looked up) and RDDL can very easily be translated into RDF
(stripping out the XHTML documentation in the process). An XSLT transform to
do exactly this is references as a resource in the RDDL specification
itself -- again as the RDDL spec is itself written in RDDL, "view source" is
a great way to see examples of how it can be used.
For many simple applications, i.e. when simple XLinks are appropriate and
when there is a desire to "see" the document in a browser, RDDL fits the
bill. On the other hand, it is not designed to be a general graph
description language. In order to deal with general graphs, something like
RDF, or Topic Maps (whose XML representation also leverages XLink) or
extended XLinks/Linkbases would be much more appropriate.
The advantage of RDDL is that it is really simple to parse, and that it
displays in the large existing installed base of HTML browsers.
Jonathan
|
