RE: FW: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS

> mapping itself can itself be readily expressed using RDF(S) in such a
way
> that modifications/additions can be made without breaking existing
systems.
> This isn't really the case with XML Schema (IMHO) because the emphasis
is
> more on structure than meaning. A tree (I would hazard) is inherently
more
> brittle than a graph.

OK, I understand the gist of the argument.  At the moment, it is fairly
easy to visually build a mapping between two different XSD schemas,
though, which produces XSLT.  There are a number of tools that do a good
job of this.  And my point was that *someone* has to come up with
mapping, bless it, and so on.  XSLT is technically expressed as XML, so
the mapping between two XML instances is expressed "as XML".  But I can
see some value in having the mapping itself represented as assertions.

> I'm pretty sure this wasn't what was being suggested.

Yeah, Margaret's follow-up clarified things for me.