W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

Re: D-AC010.1 proposal

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:32:07 +0200
To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020610153206.GG29525@w3.org>

* Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> [2002-06-01 11:11-0400]
> Synthisizing the discussion on this thread, what do people think of
> this proposal for D-AC010.1?
> 
> 	Each new architectural area has its representation normatively
> 	defined in a syntactic schema language defined in a W3C 
> 	Recommendation
> 
> I realize that this doesn't explicitly cite XML Schema, but it narrows
> the field while leaving specific options (XSDL and RDFS). This is afterall
> a CSF, not a requirement.
> 
> Comments?

I don't think that "syntactic schema language" includes RDF Schema.

The introduction of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema
Specification 1.0 reads[1]:

   RDF Schemas might be contrasted with XML Document Type Definitions
   (DTDs) [XML] and XML Schemas [XMLSCHEMA]. Unlike an XML DTD or Schema,
   which gives specific constraints on the structure of an XML document,
   an RDF Schema provides information about the interpretation of the
   statements given in an RDF data model. While an XML Schema can be used
   to validate the syntax of an RDF/XML expression, a syntactic schema
   alone is not sufficient for RDF purposes. RDF Schemas may also specify
   constraints that should be followed by these data models. Future work
   on RDF Schema and XML Schema might enable the simple combination of
   syntactic and semantic rules from both [SCHEMA-ARCH].

This is why I am advocating for using the generic term "schema language".

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#intro
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 11:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT