re: [namespaceDocument-8] RDF and RDDL

TimBL wrote:
 >
 >I suspect the "purpose" should be the Property linking the two.
 >rddl:Resource is just too vague to be useful, and to specify
 >a generic relationship and then qualify it (via an intremedite
 >node) with a property which gives the real relationship
 >is a form of reification.

I see the point but also a problem: you may not know - or
want to assert - the purpose.  You may just want to say
"here's a CSS stylesheet" or "here's a DTD".  The current
setup allows you to decide which of {nature-only,
purpose-only, nature+purpose} you want to provide.  In
fact rddl:Resource is a perfectly clear (albeit lightweight)
property, asserting "this resource is related", in fact
it should perhaps be renamed "rddl:Related".  It also
now dawns on me that with the RDF setup, I can easily and
economically give a related resource two different purposes,
i.e. some XSD schema is provided *both* for authoring
support and CVS-checkin-time validation.  -Tim