W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002


From: Margaret Green <mgreen@nextance.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:53:55 -0700
Message-ID: <458473676F1AC74A84EAB2F22004DA6D0BF181@mail.nextance.com>
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Webster's "explicate" := to develop the implications of : analyze

I think I'm close in my usage. Why use ten words, when one will do?

My message said "conjecture" and my observation was under "Intuitions"


I assume the research itself is in XML and that any given researcher
owns very few of the documents. Defining the structure of the XML
documents is certainly suitable for an xml schema language. 

Sharing data from experiments and test measurements would also likely be
in XML. 

Emergent, developing work (like that of a researcher) will likely
benefit from the flexibility of just in time modeling using RDF Schema.
With RDF they could make statements about research documents and data.
Research is an ongoing process that takes its' own form. RDF could be
useful during that unfolding process.

When the research is done, publish it in XML with its' structure defined
by an xml schema language. 

more at end.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:14 PM
To: R.V.Guha; Margaret Green
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS

> I think you are right --- we have a situation where a bunch of
> scientists are each publishing data, meant to be used by others. XML
> schema forces them into a model where they all have to agree to a
> and use that to publish their data. If one of them has a new kind of
> that hasn't been thought off before, then it could be tough luck.

Well, if you want your RDF to interoperate, it needs to have a
consistent schema or a mapping between your RDF schema and the other
guy's.  This is exactly the same situation with XML Schema.

> > 1. New knowledge can't be modeled ahead of time, before it takes
> > Without form I'm hard pressed to explicate a strong structure
> > in XML Schema.

Using "explicate" where "explain" would do is not very "explicative".
In any case, I don't exactly understand the point.  Are you saying that
it is impossible to come up with a schema until all knowledge has been

Your question attempts to put words in my mouth. I reject your
projection of that implication onto me.

As for the word police .... (sigh)
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:55:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:40 UTC