Re: RDF Core WG work on literals

Oooh, I like this one!  Now we have justification to make DAML+OIL
completely different from RDF!  :-)  After, all they are on different
layers!

peter



From: "Andrei S. Lopatenko" <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: Re: RDF Core WG work on literals
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 19:34:09 +0200

> 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  Are these simply out of date now?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 15:07:56 UTC