- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:55:18 +0400
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "Jo Rabin" <jo@linguafranca.org>, public-mobileok-checker@w3.org
I think this is the way forward, personally, but... Now, here I may expose my limited understanding of RDF. I understand RDF is effectively a particular application of XML, and that while it is described in XML, its model is more that of a graph than a tree of elements. EARL is an application of RDF. There is already an XML schema for the earl: namespace. As applied to describing HTTP, it happens to also fit the tree-oriented model of XML already. That is it makes sense as XML too already. Why do we need another schema? is it that we need to impose tighter constraints on ordering? Put another way: what goes so wrong if we reuse the earl: namespace rather than write the same elements again in another namespace? Did that make any sense? Sean On 4/24/07, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > > b) I wonder if it would be a good idea to separate out the http part (and > > possibly others) into standalone schemas? > > As above, I'd be happy to work with you on such an XML schema for the > HTTP Vocabulary (in RDF).
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 14:55:45 UTC