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

Re: RDF Core WG work on literals

From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:34:09 +0200
Message-ID: <001301c14843$c7d99a20$a6498280@tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "'Walter Niedermayer'" <walter@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
There are a lof of diagrames of this sort,
but the fact that RDF is on different layer then XML in SW does not means
that RDF is dependent or "is a" XML.
Logic is on different layer then RDF or XML, but you can not say that Logic
" is a" or dependent on RDF or XML.
Developed logic theories and models for applications should be dependend on
RDF notation or use RDF semantics
I think in future in diagramms, presentation it should be emphasized that
XML and N3 and .. can be low level for RDF encoding, but no more then low
level for RDF encoding

Best regards
MSc Andrei S. Lopatenko
Researcher
Vienna University of Technology
Extension Centre
http://derpi.tuwien.ac.at/~andrei/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Crowther" <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:29 PM
Subject: RE: RDF Core WG work on literals


> > From: Narahari, Sateesh [mailto:Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com]
> > But RDF is not XML and XML is not RDF.
> >
> > Why enforce anything related to XML, into RDF model?
> [...]
>
> It's an interesting point, especially given that diagrams such as [1] tend
> to depict RDF as a layer above XML.  Are these simply out of date now?
Has
> RDF taken on an independent existence, and become just another stand-alone
> standard?
>
> - Peter
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html, and many
> other places
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 13:27:44 GMT

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