Re: Minimal RDDL [NamespaceDocument-8]

Hello Tim,

Does rddl contain a way for an RDDL document to say, in
machine-readable form, "I'm a document about namespace X"?

For example, the RDDL spec at says:

"This document describes the syntax and semantics of the Resource Directory
Description Language 1.0, and also serves as a Resource Directory Description
for the namespace"

This is in prose, but is there an equivalent in machine readable form?
Syntactically, this would probably be rather easy, by just defining
a nature or purpose of (the Namespace
REC) to stand for 'this rddl document is a description of the namespace
given as the link target'.

Identifying the actual namespace described is important because
one can always get to the same document in different ways
(compare and and; which one is the rddl namespace?).

Regards,   Martin.

At 14:33 03/02/14 -0800, Tim Bray wrote:

>I have an action item, working with Paul Cotton, to produce a draft of 
>RDDL based on the discussion we've had around the TAG.  I reviewed the 
>input, talked to Paul, and co-author Jonathan Borden, and got to
>Here's how.  The original RDDL draft from Borden and me was XHTML plus a 
>new element <rddl:resource> with a bunch of ordinary attributes like title 
>and description, plus two special ones "nature" (namespace name or mime 
>type) and "purpose" (what you want to use this for).  Both nature and 
>purpose were going to be URIs; RDDL was going to provide a bunch of useful 
>pre-cooked purposes.
>People coming from the Semantic Web direction (including co-author 
>Jonathan Borden) argued in favor of several different RDF representations, 
>but they all had significant overhead, and furthermore IMHO failed to 
>achieve their semantic-web objective while simultaneously making RDDL 
>uglier less useful in terms of its original goal.  I just don't think the 
>community will buy into any of those alternatives.
>Next, Sandro Hawke suggested just using the existing <xhtml:a> element, 
>which has little-used attributes rel= and type= which fit pretty well 
>perfectly onto "nature" and "purpose".  See 
>  Turns out 
>there are two problems with this.  First of all, how do you know that some 
>particular <html:a> is pointing to related-resources, rather than just 
>being a human-oriented hyperlink right there in the text? Second, it turns 
>out that rel= and type= come preloaded with a bunch of fuzzy 
>semantics,  I've appended a private email from Sandro.  Having read it, it 
>seemed likely impossible to cleanly reuse rel= and type=.
>So, in conclusion, the above is a RDDL proposal using <html:a> 
>elements,  not trying to re-use the "rel" and "rev" attributes, but rather 
>introducing just two new attributes, rddl:nature and rddl:purpose.  The 
>element has tons of other useful attributes like "title" and "longdesc" 
>and so on already, people can use those if they want to and occasionally 
>browsers will even do something useful with them. Bear in mind that *all* 
>these RDDL proposals are more or less isomorphic in that you could turn 
>pretty well any of them into pretty well any of the others with an XSLT 
>script. -Tim Sandro's note 
>============================================== >> 1. The TAG seems to have 
>consensus that we should move forward toward >> something to fill the RDDL 
>hole, and I have part of the job of producing >> a first-cut WD. I would 
>like to base it on your suggestion using the >> existing attributes of > 
>, just >> 
>because it seems like the simplest possible way to proceed. Someone >> 
>piped up and said that your proposal was invalid per some HTML rule or >> 
>another but I never took the trouble to figure out whether this was >> 
>right or not. Is there a problem and does your proposal need >> 
>modification to work around this? I discussed the problem in a followup 
>[1] and then offered an amended proposal [2] which should be valid in all 
>HTMLs. It's a vaguely unpleasant situation with XHTML 1.1. The document 
>linked in [2] contains the amended rddl challenge text, or see [3]. One 
>could also do the imports using LINK in the HEAD, I suppose, if one wanted 
>them to be invisible. >> Also, another question... does the profile= 
>attribute in the > element mean that for all > the RDDL semantics? Or is 
>there a case to be made for some other >> syntactic mechanism to 
>distinguish > opposed to generic links? I think profiles allow you to 
>define additional link types (values for rel=), but not change existing 
>ones [4]. I'm thinking these RDDL semantics for type are the same as the 
>existing semantics (a hint as to what Content-Type you'll get if you do a 
>GET), so there's no issue there. This kind of relies on the TAG view that 
>Content-Type values should be viewed as URIs. It's hard to find an example 
>of profile= which doesn't have Dan Connolly's name on it. :-) [1] 
> [2] 
> [3] 
> [4] 

Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 19:54:32 UTC