W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

RDDL Proposal from Jonathan Borden was: Re: RDDL Proposal from Tim Bray

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:08:06 -0500
Message-ID: <02b701c29d28$850a4290$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "WWW-Tag" <www-tag@w3.org>

Taking Tim's non-RDF RDDL proposal, we can make an RDF version:


>
> The example in my proposal seems to have been mangled somehow in the
> www-tag archives by a combination of line-wrap and something in the pipe
> trying to interpret some of the tags.  Here's another effort; all HTML
> tags have been protected with an "h:" prefix and I've shortened the lines:
>
> <h:html xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org">
> <h:head><h:title>The L namespace</h:title>
> <h:/head>
> <h:body><h:h1>The L Namespace</h:h1>
> <h:p>The name of the namespace is
>     "http://example.com/L" </h:p>
> <rddl:rr href="/schemas/L.rng"
>           title="RelaxNG Schema"
>           nature="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"
>           purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#validation" />
> <rddl:rr href="/style/L.css"
>           title="CSS Stylesheet"
>           nature=
>   "http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/css"
>           purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#render" />
> </h:body>
> </h:html>

<h:html xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/RDDL2#">
<h:head><h:title>The L namespace</h:title>
<h:/head>
<h:body><h:h1>The L Namespace</h:h1>
<h:p>The name of the namespace is
    "http://example.com/L" </h:p>
<rddl:resource rddl:title="RelaxNG Schema"
>
    <rddl:href rdf:resource="/schemas/L.rng"/>
    <rddl:nature rdf:resource="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0" />
     <rddl:purpose rdf:resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#validation" />
</rddl:resource>
<rddl:resource rddl:title="CSS Stylesheet">
    <rddl:href rdf:resource="href="/style/L.css"/>
     <rddl:natture
rdf:resource="http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/
css" />
      <rddl:purpose rdf:resource="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#render" />
</rddl:resource>
</h:body>
</h:html>

>
> Pro: easy for anyone to understand, parse, and generate.
> Con: Isn't XLink so if a generic XLink processor existed, it wouldn't be
> able to use it.
> Con: Isn't RDF, so not directly part of the Semantic Web (on the other
> hand, you could trivially generate any of the dozens of different
> RDDL/RDF proposals based on reading the above).
>
So that "Con" is now a "Pro" given the trivial generation of RDF from what
you've proposed.

Note1: This is almost identical to what Simon St. Laurent initially
proposed, and what I also trivially converted to RDF.

Note2: Paul Prescod has proposed something along the lines of

<rddl:namespace rdf:about="">
    <rddl:name rdf:resource="#RNG"/>
    <rddl:name rdf:resource="#CSS"/>
</rddl:namespace>

where the above <rddl:resource> elements are given an ID i.e.

<rddl:resource rdf:ID="RNG" ...
<rddl:resource rdf:ID="CSS" ...

in this way the namespace representation can contain a collection of names,
which is what Paul says is what a namespace is about. I agree.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 08:28:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT