W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Alternatives to XML for RDF?

From: Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:24:20 -0700
Message-ID: <3F3B9B94.4020500@globalmentor.com>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: aredridel@nbtsc.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext Aredridel [mailto:aredridel@nbtsc.org]
>>Sent: 13 August, 2003 21:22
>>To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Alternatives to XML for RDF?
>>An easy example of this would be RSS 1.0: I'm not sure if 
>>there's a spec
>>for how the XML should be formed, exactly, beyond RDF/XML rules, but
>>specifying it should be easy:
> Defining an XML Schema or DTD for a particular ontology, serialized
> as RDF/XML is not only doable, but commonly done. An excellent
> example is XPackage (http://www.xpackage.org) which defines a hybrid
> model for package definitions which can be interpreted as either XML
> or RDF.
> But that's a *particular* application, and fine (and needed) for
> validation of particular instances conforming to that particular
> application. But such things can't be done for RDF/XML in general.

I've even backed away from this in XPackage. I originally forced 
XPackage instances to both be RDF compliant and match a supplied XML 
Schema, simply because some implementors didn't want to be required to 
implement a fully-blown RDF processor. I've come to realize that 
requiring XML Schema compliance unnecessarily restricts the things one 
can do with XPackage.

XPackage now provides an optional XML Schema so that one can *produce* a 
compliant XPackage instance without knowing RDF, but still requires a 
fully compliant RDF processor to *consume* an XPackage instance. XML 
Schema doesn't allow one to validate the complex logical relationships 
allowed by RDF.

Received on Thursday, 14 August 2003 10:26:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:47 UTC