Re: [xml-dev] RDDL is bad, replace it with my RDF

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2012-06-26 22:00 +0300, Victor Porton wrote:
>I think to place an XHTML code (so called RDDL) at a namespace URL 
>was a really bad idea.

I disagree.

>This URL

A namespace URI isn't (necessarily) a URL.  It is a URI.  That is all 
that is important for distinguishing the names from names in other 
namespace URIs.

>is intended for computers not people,

No, a computer need never visit a URI in order for the namespace 
principle to work.

>whilst XHTML is intended for people not computers.

Exactly!  And when you add RDDL to it the XHTML is also useful to computers.

Which is why I think XHTML+RDDL at the URL of a URI is perfectly 
suited.  I find in class that many students come to my class thinking 
that going to the URL of a namespace URI is important ... and putting 
XHTML at the URL of a URI makes it useful (though no more important 
than it was).  Useful to those without tools to read the RDDL and 
useful to those with tools to read the RDDL.

Useful, but not important.

>Even if someone will oppose me, I will insist lobbying placing RDF 
>code at NS URLs.

Fine ... different strokes for different folks.  But if someone 
without an RDF tool visits the URL of your URI, would they get as 
much out of the page of data?

>I will provide a link from my RDF into an RDDL however.

Not sure what that means.  Do you mean a link into an XHTML+RDDL document?

. . . . . . . . . Ken


--
Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL and code list classes in Europe -- Oct 2012
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm
Crane Softwrights Ltd.            http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
G. Ken Holman                   mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about
Legal business disclaimers:    http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal