[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Eric Hanson wrote:
> Jonathan Borden (jonathan@openhealth.org) wrote:
>>
>> RDDL provides *a* solution to this problem, namely that you resolve
>> the
>> namespace URI, get back a representation (document) and this tells you
>> something about the namespace.
>>
>> An RDF triple store might provide, assuming some things were worked
>> out, a different mechanism for finding out about a namespace URI e.g.
>> a
>> triple store might contain various triples that reference the URI.
>
> Before deciding on RDF or any other data format, I think it's
> important to figure out the structure of a resource description.
> If a resource can be sufficiently described using a tree
> structure, forcing users to author it in a graph language would
> be IMHO a big mistake.
I used the phrase "RDF triple store" rather than simply "RDF" for the
specific reason that I am not talking about the RDF syntax, or RDF
documents, rather the result of parsing perhaps many documents into
triples.
>
> I have a lot of thoughts about RDF and why I think many of the
> benefits of RDF can be achieved in a simpler and more elegant
> fashion using plain XML with schema languages that lend
> themselves to extensibility, but I'll try to avoid that rant for
> as long as possible :)
>
>> If you read through the xml-dev archives, we had very early on
>> considered including a mime-type property -- actually this was my
>> initial suggestion, but then we decided this was redundant -- the
>> nature can serve as a URI encoding of a mime-type as is described in
>> the RDDL document.
>
> This is the mime type of the resource itself, no? In the case
> of a transformation, there is a second mime type for the results
> of the transformation. This I guess should be refered to as
> "target mime type", not just mime type.
I am just saying that for any mime-type e.g. text/plain you can
generate a URI as is described in RDDL 6.1. YMMV
>
>> A key, perhaps *the* only unique characteristic of RDDL is that it is
>> intended to be human readable. If you drop the requirement for human
>> readability RDDL is an utter waste of time, and you'd be far better of
>> using RDF directly.
>
> But there's still a spec here to be written. Even if RDF was
> decided upon, there has to be some kind of standardized way to
> describe resources beyond anyone can say anything about
> anything.
I suppose that if you are simply looking to use nature and purpose you
can simply use rddl:nature and rddl:purpose as a simple vocabulary.
Indeed take a look at RDDL2: http://www.rddl.org/rddl2
>
> I like RDDL as a starting place, but maybe what I'd like to see
> is some kind of sister spec for non-human-readable RDDL.
Aha. If you are looking to develop a *non* human readable format then
we are at a sharp point of divergence.
Jonathan
|
