Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Borden (jonathan@o...) wrote: > Eric Hanson wrote: > > > > > > One thing to note is that RDDL is centralized; the descriptor is > > stored at the namespace URI. It's designed to point to schemas > > and other things that go along with making a namespace, so > > having it controlled by the namespace owner is fine in this > > context. In the application domain though, third parties should > > be able to write a handler for a type of data without having to > > work with the namespace owner to add it to their RDDL file. > > > > Although it is convenient to store a RDDL file so that it will be > returned on dereferencing a namespace URI (i.e. store the RDDL document > "at" the namespace URI) this is not necessary. RDDL is a *language* and > RDDL documents might be stored *locally* ... for example add a > reference to the local file in an XML catalog. > > It is true that it is *designed* to be suitable as a format to return > on dereferencing a namespace URI, but this does not make RDDL > centralized ... hardly ... Yeah ok, centralized probably isn't the right word here, and I didn't mean to imply that the language itself is centralized. Just I think there needs to be a way for third parties to associate resources with a namespace in such a way that they can be found using just the namespace. > On the other hand if you really want to disassociate information about > namespace URIs from mechanisms used to dereference the URI e.g. DNS > HTTP etc, RDF is an excellent choice. Will you talk more about this? The thing that made RDDL attractive is: * it's designed specifically to describe a directory of resources associated with a namespace * nature/purpose are perfect Not using RDDL is fine with me but maybe I could borrow the nature/purpose concepts? Eric
|
