• From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
• To: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>
• Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:59:10 +0000

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 09:17:19PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote in another thread,
> > FWIW I'll be putting XHTML and RDF at most of my namespaces and 
> > could really do with a vocabulary for pointing to Java classes, 
> > XML schemata, public keys, XSLTs and suchlike to include
> > alongside.
> 
> Many of the things Dan mentions here look as tho' they'd be
> equally appropriate as resouces related to a complete document
> instance ... so the association might be doc<->resources, not
> just namespace<->resources.
> 
> I don't see any particular reason why that should affect the
> content of a gloss doc, but it pretty clearly means that using
> namespace URIs for making the association won't do the whole
> job.

I was thinking along similar lines, too.  As indeed Paul Grosso observed
earlier there are elements of this that fit with the "XML Packaging"
thing.

Maybe all that's needed is a way (PI or attribute) for a document
instance to indicate a relevant resource bundle (or whatever it gets
called...) -- or maybe documents can incorporate inline aspects from the
resource vocabulary.

Either way, I'm enormously happy to see this activity underway.

-- Edd

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespace or document gloss?
    • From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@m...>

• References:
  • Namespace or document gloss?
    • From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Web service and Semantic Web
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace or document gloss?
• Previous by thread: Namespace or document gloss?
• Next by thread: Re: Namespace or document gloss?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread