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


From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 17:28:09 -0400
Message-ID: <021601c0c917$a25b7f30$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Murray Altheim" <altheim@eng.sun.com>, "Ken MacLeod" <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Murray Altheim wrote:

> In XML Schema we have one of the most involved, complex, and well-though
> out specifications (probably only in competition with Hytime), and yet
> it cannot validate RDF. That seems a real problem, and nothing that
> (as has been noted) is in the realm of XHTML to solve.

I think it is premature to consider this "[RDF] cannot validate RDF" a
foregone conclusion. i.e. lack of an XSD for RDF does not imply that one
cannot be written. Dan Connolly's prior effort was getting close to the

This raises the idea of considering both RDF and XHTML as grammars by which
the various schema languages can be compared and contrasted.

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 17:43:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:35 UTC