- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:21:44 -0800
- 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 UTC