- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:32:38 -0400
- To: <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > The problem with the RDF compatible one is that it is not XML Schema > compatible. I'm envisioning a (possible) situation where ontologies are > presented in the XML Schema syntax and facts are written in RDF syntax (or, > maybe, in the other XML Schema syntax, but I guess that this would be too > radical). > Or alternatively look at RELAXNG http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/, for which RDFCore has developed a nice schema for general RDF. Indeed the RELAXNG non-XML syntax is very easy to read and you will notice a certain resemblence to the XQuery formal semantics type syntax. see: http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/compact/index.html http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/compact/syntax.html I was fooling around with RELAXNG syntaxes for RDF last year: http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDFSurfaceSyntax.html http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/RDF1.rng and James Clark has written one -- in the non-XML "compact" syntax, for the new RDF syntax: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001JulSep/0248.html You see that this compact syntax is very easy to work with. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:38:01 UTC