On Wednesday 14 April 2004 03:24, Alex Karasulu wrote: > That's brilliant!
Thanks, but not so fast. There are still "specification representation" issues to be sorted out. I, myself, am very fond of RDF, so that; 1. The 'component' is a URI. 2. The 'compliesWith', 'requires' and 'requests' are URIs. 3. The specification is a URI. Then you need to 'represent' the RDF in some format, XML is one possible, and finally you need to define how does the, for instance, container get hold of it (RDF searches on the net seems like overkill). And I am sure that other people would like to see other representations, so we need to accommodate for other solutions as well. In any event, I think I am on the right track, and will soon formulize some of the findings in more 'official' docs, possibly on Wiki. Niclas -- +---------//-------------------+ | http://www.bali.ac | | http://niclas.hedhman.org | +------//----------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
