Re: RDDL2 Background

Eric van der Vlist wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 18:08, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>
>  
>
>>This is how we could do this in RDDL2:
>>(assume namespace = http://example.org/namespace#)
>><div id="foo">
>>    <a rddl:nature="http://example.org/n1"
>>rddl:purpose="http://example.org/p1" href="..."> ...</a>
>>    ...
>></div>
>>
>>which using the ancestor-or-self::*[@id] XSLT pattern could be used to 
>>create the following subject URU: <http://example.org/namespace#foo>.
>>
>>This fits along the general practice of using id="foo" as a way of 
>>specifying what a fragment identifier identifies (in HTML)
>>    
>>
>
>But this still doesn't let you define the source of the RDDL link
>independently of XHTML links like that was possible in RDDL 1.0.
>  
>
Correct. This is one of those 80/20  issues that would be great if we 
could acheive a rough consensus on. I am just suggesting a possible 
compromise.

>The real good thing about RDDL 1.0 is that <rddl:resource/> are
>fragments that can have a meaning by themselves: they can embed a piece
>of rich documentation about the resource that they describe and they can
>be very useful for creating modular vocabularies.
>  
>
That was the original reason to go with a new element rather than 
overload <html:a>. In RDDL2, the new semantics are identified by the 
attributes (rddl:nature, rddl:purpose) rather than by the element 
(rddl:resource). In *practice* almost every <rddl:resource> has a child 
<html:a>. Is there a problem with using a parent <html:div> to embed the 
rich documentation about the resource (named using <div id="foo">) and 
using <html:a> to identify links from that resource local to the 
namespace and external related resources?

Jonathan