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

Re: Clarifying RDF #2: a Schematron schema

From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:57:37 +0800
Message-ID: <00c901c0f999$58b14920$d2c8a8c0@allette.com.au>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I wonder how they wrote their RELAX schema (and also Michael's XML Schema

If they just rewrote my earlier DTD from 1999, they cannot be very good :-)
And the issue of handling the dreaded abbreviated syntax looms: I think only
Schematron could handle that (actually, the Schematron schema posted does
not validate the abbreviated syntax thoroughly, due to my lack of time and
patience with it.)

I think both RELAX and XML Schemas should be good for modeling RDF, in that
their abstraction mechanisms provide a type/tag distinction.  But they both
share the same problem as DTDs: one needs to enumerate the element names
explicitly in the schema for all intents and purposes.  An architecture like
RDF which has type implication ("if this element has a child, it must be
this thing regardless of its name") flies in the face of conventional markup
practise (but it is the kind of pattern that I think crops up regularly, and
it is one reason why Schematron has patterns as its abstraction not elements
or "types".)

Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 09:02:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:36 UTC