[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Borden (jonathan@openhealth.org) wrote:
> Eric Hanson wrote:
> >
> >
> > One thing to note is that RDDL is centralized; the descriptor is
> > stored at the namespace URI. It's designed to point to schemas
> > and other things that go along with making a namespace, so
> > having it controlled by the namespace owner is fine in this
> > context. In the application domain though, third parties should
> > be able to write a handler for a type of data without having to
> > work with the namespace owner to add it to their RDDL file.
> >
>
> Although it is convenient to store a RDDL file so that it will be
> returned on dereferencing a namespace URI (i.e. store the RDDL document
> "at" the namespace URI) this is not necessary. RDDL is a *language* and
> RDDL documents might be stored *locally* ... for example add a
> reference to the local file in an XML catalog.
>
> It is true that it is *designed* to be suitable as a format to return
> on dereferencing a namespace URI, but this does not make RDDL
> centralized ... hardly ...
Yeah ok, centralized probably isn't the right word here, and I
didn't mean to imply that the language itself is centralized.
Just I think there needs to be a way for third parties to
associate resources with a namespace in such a way that they can
be found using just the namespace.
> On the other hand if you really want to disassociate information about
> namespace URIs from mechanisms used to dereference the URI e.g. DNS
> HTTP etc, RDF is an excellent choice.
Will you talk more about this? The thing that made RDDL
attractive is:
* it's designed specifically to describe a directory of resources
associated with a namespace
* nature/purpose are perfect
Not using RDDL is fine with me but maybe I could borrow the
nature/purpose concepts?
Eric
|
