W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 1999

Re: Cambridge Communique

From: Renato Iannella <renato@dstc.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 11:40:24 +1000
To: Ken Laskey <kenneth.j.laskey@saic.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <619325.3151395624@columbus.dstc.edu.au>


--On 11/11/99 10:48 AM -0500 Ken Laskey wrote:

> Here is another opinion of the relationship.  Imagine an XML Schema 
> that defines the "hard" metadata for a book, e.g. author, title, 
> ISBN.  These are immutable properties of the book.  Now, the New York 
> Times does a review of the book which creates "assertions" which are 
> not hard facts but still related information.  The connection of 
> these assertions to the book would be through RDF.  RDF might also be 
> used by various booksellers to make assertions about the price they 
> are individually charging or possibly special offers about the book.

I think this highlights the possible confusion between XML and RDF
Schemas. If I want to describe my Books - should I use XML or RDF
Schema? Or Both? If I choose one over the other, what would I be
"missing" out on?

This is what (personally) I would have preferred to see out of
the "Cambridge Communique". 


Cheers... Renato
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dr Renato Iannella           ->  http://purl.net/net/renato
Principal Research Scientist ->  http://www.dstc.edu.au/
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        .....Computers Only Know Two Things.....
Received on Thursday, 11 November 1999 20:38:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:42 GMT