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

Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:21:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3DD26E08.6090603@textuality.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Tim Berners-Lee wrote:

> >- the purpose of L.dtd is strict-validation
>
>
> That doesn't make sense.  You have to say.
> L1  has strict-validator  L.dtd
>
> (or you coudl use the inverse relationship)
>
> The "strict validation" is a relationship between
> the langauge and the DTD in your example.
> To model it as just a "purpose" of a DTD in no context is mis-modelling.

On the contrary.  The assertion that L.dtd's purpose is 
strict-validation occurs in a representation of the namespace, which 
supplies the necessary context.  It is onerous and unreasonable to 
expect a RDDL author to write something down that a machine has the 
information necessary to deduce.

Furthermore, the core idea of RDDL is that there is a directory of 
related resources which can be selected based on the values of two 
fields: nature and purpose, both identified by URI, with some useful 
pre-cooked values supplied for each.  This simple and easy-to-understand 
core idea is why RDDL got welcomed.

If that simplicity is not possible to achieve using RDF as a tool, then 
RDF is not an appropriate tool for RDDL.

Which is my conclusion from this thread in www-tag.  Let's stay with 
XLink. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 10:21:49 GMT

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