Re: D-AC010.1 proposal

+1

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:32:07PM +0200, Hugo Haas wrote:
> 
> * 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

-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com