W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Linking RDF

From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:59:26 -0700
Message-ID: <3ADE2A5E.1B915D18@eng.sun.com>
To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Joshua Allen wrote:
> 
> > I feel like I'm not making any progress here though in one idea, and
> > that is that linking to "RDF" is almost like linking to "XML" -- one
> > needs to specify what specific grammar of RDF is being served.
> Otherwise,
> > the processor has no understanding of the semantics of the received
> RDF.
> 
> Very perceptive - since this list is populated by people who are
> interested in RDF as a general tool that abstracts out the details of
> particular grammars, then it would seem a bit odd to find people here
> who thought RDF was not useful in such contexts.  I am sure we can all
> understand the trepidation of someone who is not an RDF-Head, but that
> doesn't make the entire approach invalid.  I have to ask if you have yet
> read the Cambridge Communique?  This question of "processor has no
> understanding" should have been suitably answered in that -- the XHTML
> processor may wish to validate the most basic things about the structure
> of the RDF section, using an XML Schema, but it is not necessary,
> desirable, or even remotely useful to have the XHTML processor attempt
> to validate any further -- the validation of the semantics, the RDF
> grammar(s) being used, etc. -- all of these are the domain of RDF, and
> should not be the concern of XHTML.

The "Cambridge Communique" sounds curiously like a manifesto. No, I
haven't read it. Do I have to agree to its tenets before proceeding?
I'm trying to approach this without being an RDF-Head, as surely if
I were to become one I'd have less value to a group of RDF-Heads, no?

I'm neither speaking as an XHTML-Head, merely one who believes that it
shouldn't be a requirement on anyone to profess a religious view in 
order to participate. I hear overtones of that here, just as I do in
XHTML, topic map, ontological, etc. circles. It's certainly rather
common and understandable. But so long as we all stay within our 
particular castes, we're less likely to find a more global solution. 

I don't advocate that an "XHTML processor" attempt validation of RDF,
I'm speaking generally for XML processing. I don't think either RDF
or XHTML deserve special treatment in this light. 

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap
      ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 19:57:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT