W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Explaining why we use RDF instead of just XML

From: Matthews, BM (Brian) <B.M.Matthews@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:16:20 +0100
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C0250248E@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: public-esw@w3.org, RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "'bmm@inf.rl.ac.uk'" <bmm@inf.rl.ac.uk>

my 2'penn'oth

I think that this comes near the nub of the question around
interoperability using RDF and its relationship to XML Schema.

Many organisations are spending a lot of time taking 
the opposite approach to Charles by carefully crafting XML Schemas
for their own use (e.g. see the UK e-Gif Schema repository
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/schemasstandards.asp),
reusing components of other schemas and then wanting to use them
for interchange.  Combination of elements from different 
schemas is then controlled via namespace - and as they are keen on 
syntactic validation only in pretty restricted circumstances 
(avoiding "the unpredictable tag soup").  From this PoV, the 
free mixing of vocabulary advocated by Charles and Dan looks 
pretty anarchic and uncontrollable.  

There is a challenge to RDF here to convince them:
 - its more than just the namespace (Trent's question)
 - it can help enable the interoperability required of the XML Schemas
   when they get into difficulties through conflicting XML representations
   of the same thing.  But they will still want the structural
   framework of XML Schema (or similar).

SWAD WP5/6 is looking at this.

Brian 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
> Sent: 25 June 2003 13:18
> To: Trent Shipley
> Cc: public-esw@w3.org; RDF Interest Group
> Subject: Re: Explaining why we use RDF instead of just XML
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that it is. It is different from what I believe 
> people think
> they are doing when they create XML namespaces - but I 
> suspect that many
> people are like me and actually don't write a schema first up 
> because they
> want to play around with it first...   an ideal situation for 
> declaring it as
> an RDF vocabulary instead of using an XML schema.
> 
> chaals
> 
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Trent Shipley wrote:
> 
> >
> >It makes sense as far as it goes.
> >
> >Unfortunately, this makes RDF sound like a complex and 
> expensive way to define
> >a simple namespace.  How is an RDF application different from an
> >XML-Namespace?
> >
> >
> >On Wednesday 2003-06-25 02:48, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >> RDF IG, (copying SWAD-Europe list)
> >
> >[Why use RDF applications?]
> >> [[
> >
> >* * *
> >
> >>
> >> So, for any particular application, you could do it in 
> standalone XML. RDF
> >> is designed for areas where there is a likely pay-off from 
> overlaps and
> >> data merging, ie. the messy world we live in where things 
> aren't so easily
> >> parceled up into discrete jobs.
> >>
> >> Does this make any sense?
> >> ]]
> >
> 
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  
> tel: +61 409 134 136
> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): 
> +33 4 92 38 78 22
>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 09:16:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:12 GMT