About RDDL 2.0

Please find attached mails about RDDL 2.0 posted on XML-DEV (Jonathan
Borden suggested that they would be appropriate for the TAG).

Hope that helps.

Eric
-- 
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
                                                  http://examplotron.org
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

attached mail follows:

On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 20:46, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> I've posted a new version of RDDL (2.0) at http://www.rddl.org/
> 
> Changes:
> 
> -This version uses Tim Bray's non-XLink syntax which the TAG seems to 
> be solidifying on, and for which I haven't heard any opposition to for 
> at least 6 months. i.e..

Sorry, I am not following the TAG any longer and had totally missed this
proposal.

> 	<a rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
> 		rddl:purpose="..."
> 		href="foo.html">Example</a>

I feel uneasy with this syntax that seems broken to me.

When I write:

<rddl:resource id="xsd-schema"
xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation"
xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xlink:title="W3C XML
Schema for examplotron" xlink:href="examplotron.xsd" xlink:type="simple"
xlink:show="none" xlink:embed="none">
<div class="resource">
  <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
  <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a href="examplotron.xsd">schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
</div>
</rddl:resource>

I define a link between the rddl:resource fragment (ie the full
description of the schema) and the schema.

With the new syntax, if I write:

<div class="resource">
  <h4>W3C XML Schema for examplotron</h4>
  <p>This W3C XML Schema (Proposed Recommendation, 16 March 2001) <a href="examplotron.xsd" rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#schema-validation">schema</a> describes the examplotron vocabulary and can be imported in W3C XML Schema to validate examplotron schemas.</p>
</div>

I get a link between the <a/> element and the schema which is
significantly poorer than the previous one (in this example, the content
of the <a/> element is almost useless). And I can't embed the whole
definition in my link because 1) the content model of the <a/> element
doesn't allow it, b) it would be displayed as a ugly long link. 

> - The syntax *is* simpler which is a Very Good Thing
> - XLink does not appear to have achieved traction
> - Because the syntax is substantially changed I've bumped the Version 
> number up to 2.0 --- perhaps we ought use a different *namespace name* 
> e.g. http://www.rddl.org/rddl2# -- let's hear discussion on this.

Hmmm... that means that right now, all the existing RDDL documents have
a URI which describes a totally different vocabulary! That doesn't seem
right either.

Eric

> - A new DTD,  RELAXNG schema and RDDL->RDF XSLT are referenced in the 
> http://www.rddl.org/ document (which serves as its own "Hello World" 
> example)
> -This version contains relatively minor edits from the version on Tim's 
> site (called rddl4)
> 
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
-- 
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
                                                  http://examplotron.org
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

attached mail follows:

On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 23:49, Jonathan Borden wrote:

> I see your objection. Would the following be acceptable:
> 
> <div rddl:nature="..."
> 	rddl:purpose="...">
> ...
> </div>
> 
> alternatively:
> 
> <rddl:resource
> 	rddl:nature="..."
> 	rddl:purpose="...">
> ....
> </rddl:resource>

Hmmm... How would we link the nature and purpose to the link target
then?

RDDL 1.0 lets you define several <a/> links in a rddl:resource, such as
in:

<rddl:resource id="v0.2" 
  xlink:arcrole="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#prior-version" 
  xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict" 
  xlink:href="/0/2/" xlink:type="simple" xlink:show="none" 
  xlink:embed="none">
<div class="resource">
<h3><a href="/0/2/">V0.2</a></h3>
<ul>
  <li>Addition of several sections (limitations, acknowledgements, history and legal) </li>
  <li>Clarifications after comments through xml-dev and private mails.</li>
  <li>Addition of an history section in <a href="compile.xsl">compile.xsl</a></li>
  <li>Creation of a W3C XML Schema for examplotron (<a href="examplotron.xsd">examplotron.xsd</a>).</li>
  <li>Start to feed the resources section.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</rddl:resource>

I find that very handy, but how would you know which @href should be
chosen when there are multiple <a/> in a single rddl:resource without 
giving separate definitions?

And if we had to write :

<rddl:resource id="v0.2" 
  rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#prior-version" 
  rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict" 
  rddl:link="/0/2/">

Or even

<div id="v0.2" 
  rddl:purpose="http://www.rddl.org/purposes#prior-version" 
  rddl:nature="http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict" 
  rddl:link="/0/2/">

The difference with the current syntax seems pretty much limited to a
boycott of XLink which doesn't seem to be a benefit by itself to me!

The current version is verbose, but I think that this verbosity is
required for its expressive power. 

Note that it can easily be compacted for edition when needed: I use a
"RDDL compact XML syntax" which is XSLT transformed into plain RDDL for
publication and this lets me add extra goodies such as TOC and indexes
generation.

Eric
-- 
Freelance consulting and training.
                                            http://dyomedea.com/english/
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

attached mail follows:

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 00:04, Jonathan Borden wrote:

> Ok, for the moment (until we get some consensus on whether to either 
> keep the same namespace for RDDL, or to use another)  I've placed the 
> new spec at
> 
> http://www.rddl.org/rddl2
> 
> *but* left the namespace the same in that document.

Thanks!

I think that we either need a separate namespace or to describe both
RDDL 1.0 and RDDL 2.0 in the RDDL directory for RDDL (or at least to
provide a link to RDDL 1.0).

Eric
-- 
Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
                       http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
 - Santa Clara  -half day- (15/03/2004)        http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>