[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Champion (michaelc.champion@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:02:12 +0000, Eric Hanson <elh@cs.pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> > 1. There is no way to look up, discover and retrieve the library
> > of resources that support with a namespace-qualified element.
> > If you come across a piece of data, there may be hundreds of
> > supporting resources like XSL transformations, schemas, xforms,
> > text documentation, etc. We need a way to link the resources to
> > the data.
>
> It would seem that there at least a dozen ways that could be done
> leveraging XML technolgies. The various flavors of RDDL (one based on
> RDF, another on XLink) come to mind
RDDL comes close, but it's not a distributed database, rather a
single authoritative piece of documentation for a namespace. We
need something where third parties can author resources and
publish them to this distributed database, so they can be found
by others.
> not to mention plain ol' XPath/XQuery
What would be queried here?
> and the various ways proposed in the web services world
> (e.g. UDDI, WS-MetadataExchange).
UDDI is in a similar spirit, but isn't it for locating web
services? We're talking about supporting resources.
> Arguably this is more or less
> exactly what the Semantic Web would enable out of the box.
Arguably this would enable the Semantic Web to get out of the
box. :-) I mean, how does the Semantic Web enable this out of
the box?
> If the problem is that there isn't a single, standard, widely
> supported way to do this, I understand ... but am not sure that a
> one-size-fits-all approach is feasible or even necessarily desirable.
> There's probably room for a WS-* one (WS-Mex?), a straight REST/RDF
> one, and maybe some conventions for doing that on an XQuery-enabled
> database. And probably several more that others are using
> successfully :-)
Yeah for sure, I'm down with lots of different interfaces to the
data, no reason to pigeon hole that.
> Can you imagine standard that would meet your needs and be broad
> enough to be widely adopted across the various religious divides (WS
> vs REST, document vs data, RDF vs straight XML, etc.) in our little
> world? What would a single standard offer that the existing toolbox
> full of stuff that could be applied to this problem would not?
IMHO, nothing would be gained from mandating any single
interface to the data. In fact I think it would be very hurtful
to limit it at all.
Yet the situation today is this: When I write a XSLT to display
an RSS document, there's no
standard/practice/convention/infrastructure/whatever-it-is with
which I can publish this resource and associate it with the RSS
data format so that you can find it in some automated fashion.
So what's the point of having a universal language for data and
a set of universal supporting resource types if there's no
universal way to link the two together?
I took a shot at making something that would work a while ago:
http://typekit.org/spec/ -- It's not much more than a strawman
at this point -- not using RDF, just one database instead of
distributed, etc.
But it seems to me this is something the w3c should have been
working on back in 2000. I think it needs to be as universal as
our DNS system or XML itself, and look something like the
XML-packaging WG charter.
Eric
|
