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

Re: RDF, RDFS and DAML+OIL benifits over XML

From: Pedro Assis in Oporto <passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:53:39 +0000 (WET)
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0211071737550.30610-100000@douro.dee.isep.ipp.pt>


Thanks for your reply. You've a point there - widely scheme distribution.  
Is there any standardization effort in what concerns a XML annotation
language? IYO can a Schematron and XML Scheme combination somehow address
this issue through Schematron embedded rule validation? Also, can you
comment on RELAX NG effort and if RDF/RDFS could benefits from this




On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Pedro Assis in Oporto wrote:
> If you took this approach, the XML you generated *could* losslessly be
> converted back into a rich body of information. Unfortunately, nobody but
> you and your immediate collaborators would be able to do this without
> guesswork or special-purpose code, since the mapping that translates
> between expressive OO model and the XML serialization would be a 'private'
> (custom, proprietary, special-purpose etc) one. RDF's XML syntax provides
> one strategy for mapping between expresive OO-style models and an XML
> notation. Until we have richer XML schema annotation languages, RDF/XML
> may be our best bet for ensuring that rich information models can be
> turned into widely-consumable XML and back again easily. Instead of each
> application inventing its own conventions for translating into markup, we
> each agree to use RDF/XML as a 'good enough' middle ground. That's the
> theory, anyway...
> Dan
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 13:05:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:43 UTC