Re: NRL

I very much agree that you should be able to plug in any description of 
the content you want -- and be able to have multiple descriptions 
co-exist. I'm not sure that NRL is necessary, though; isn't it enough 
to do something like;

<web:resource id="foo">
    <web:method name="GET">
        <web:representation media_type="application/xml">
           <web:xml_schema>...</web:xml_schema>
           <web:rng>...</web:rng>
           <web:owl>...</web:owl>
           <web:xpath_name_tuples>...</web:xpath_name_tuples>
        </web:representation>
     </web:method>
</web:resource>

?

(or put any or ever of the description containers in a separate 
namespace)

After all, you don't need to process the description; it's just 
metadata.


On May 26, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Stefan Tilkov wrote:

>
> In a comment to one his weblog postings [1], DaveO pointed me to James 
> Clark's NRL [2]. It's probably  known to everybody here, but in the 
> context of web description formats, maybe using this or something 
> similar to decouple the description format from the schema language is 
> a good idea.
>
> [1] http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2005/05/16/partial_understanding
> [2] http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/nrl.html
>
> Stefan
>
> --
> Stefan Tilkov, stefan.tilkov@innoq.com, http://www.innoq.com
> innoQ Deutschland GmbH, Halskestr. 17, D-40880 Ratingen, Germany
> Phone: +49 170 471 2624  Fax: +49 2102 77160-1
> ICQ: 177869128, AIM: stefantilkov, Weblog: 
> http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/
>
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/