[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Brennan wrote:
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
...
> >
> > Perhaps an attribute:
> >
> > <root rddl:doctype="....a RDDL directory of 'document types' ...">
>
> I don't particularly like this. For one, the rddl:doctype attribute is
> essentially a processing directive. I think a PI would be more
> appropriate. (XML Schema set a bad precedent in this regard, IMHO.) I'm
> also not convinced that a specialized attribute or PI and specialized
> purpose are needed.
Fair enough. I suppose that the purpose
http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation works for both (but don't see
the harm in another purpose either, there is no shortage of
http://www.rddl.org/ based URIs last I check the stockpile :-)
>
> I still like the XLink-in-a-PI idea I tossed out awhile ago, but oh
> well. Instead of yet another PI/attribute for one narrow purpose of
> associating one narrow type of resource with a document, why not a PI
> that can associate a linkbase with a document? That linkbase could have
> an extended link associating outbound links with a DTD public ID or
> system ID. Then you can associate resources with a DOCTYPE in a way that
> affords greater flexibility than RDDL. The linkbase could also associate
> links with namespaces (as RDDL does) or other resources, even non-XML
> resources.
>
Yes, you mentioned linkbases last week before the onslaught and I was
certainly meaning to respond before getting distracted (ahem)...
Briefly, there seems to be several ways to describe a graph (of URIs):
1) RDF
2) XLink
3) TopicMaps (?)
(also note that the rddl2rdf. XSLT implement's Ron's XLink -> RDF conversion
for RDDL which uses simple XLinks).
My thinking is that the graphs describable by RDF and XLink (including
linkbases) are different by surface syntax but not by abstract syntax i.e.
that both represent a collection of triples. Ron Daniel has a nice note
describing the XLink <-> RDF conversion. There has been alot of talk about
somehow 'merging' topic maps and RDF as well, though I think that TM may
have some relevent distinctions between concepts like "subject" and "topic"
that are not well captured by RDFs all encompasing "resource". In any case
the question is then:
1) does any or any combination of the three meet current needs?
2) if not what is missing?
In summary, I suppose it all depends on the use case for linkbases. Tell us
more.
Jonathan
|
