[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Andreas Sewe" <sewe@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RDDL and user interface
- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 21:02:38 -0400
- Cc: "Eric Hanson" <eric@aquameta.com>, "[XML-Dev]" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- In-reply-to: <004301c42961$aa02e720$c5d8e03e@baron>
- References: <18500C7E-817E-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <20040329195706.A64944@aquameta.com> <75BFDD54-8656-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <20040406115337.A44878@aquameta.com> <C83EA63B-8B6A-11D8-B1DD-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <20040414121851.A19854@aquameta.com> <4708961A-9073-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <20040418021926.A64089@aquameta.com> <7A809278-9314-11D8-886B-000A95BA5A2C@openhealth.org> <004301c42961$aa02e720$c5d8e03e@baron>
Andreas Sewe wrote:
> Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> 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
>
>> Eric Hanson wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Speaking of RDDL2: What was the reason for abandoning XLink?
>
> I'm curious because the first thing that came to my mind when reading
> about
> Typekit was that it's basically - in XLink terms - an extended,
> third-party
> linkbase.
>
RDDL2 came out of discussions on the W3C TAG mailing list and the
archives of this list contain all the reasoning behind this.
Jonathan
|
