On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Matola,Tod <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong RDDL might be the right solution to
> > what's at the end of a URL, but I think there should be careful thought
> > about what we will be stuck with after we decide.
>
> Another possibility (which I'm not to thrilled about, but would work) is to
> embed the RDF schema in the RDDL file.
>
> However, I think RDDL is the best solution here since it provides both
> a machine-readable listing of resources,
> a human-readable (XHTML) listing of resources, as well as being
> a "best practice" for namespaces.
>
> What are the problems with using RDDL?
RDDL is intended to be inclusive and pluralistic. Embedding the DC RDF
schema data alongside the RDDL info is perfectly consistent with that.
In fact I'd be inclined to go with a minimalist, static RDDL-plus-RDF at
the namespace URI, then put ever-growing RDDL directories (pointing to
translations etc) in a 'see also' document nearby.
Dan
|