Re: My action item on RDDL/RDF

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 UTC