- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:50:40 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, phayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Dan Connolly wrote: > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > [...] > > [...] > > > > Regardless of the situation with respect to incompatibility with RDF, I > > view incompatibility with XML > > I gather you mean XML Schema, not XML 1.0 itself... > > > as a fatal problem with both these proposals. > > I think that a scheme that is not compatible with > > > > [possibly some some xml schema stuff that may or may not type the 7 below] > > <foo [possibly some xml schema stuff that may or may not type the 7 below]> > > <bar [possibly some some xml schema stuff that may or may not > > type the 7 below]> > > 7 > > </bar> > > </foo> > > > > is a non-starter. > > Er.. that's an awfully high bar. To date, it hasn't been necessary > to implement XML Schema in order to parse RDF. > > I think that any scheme that requires an RDF parser to include > an XML Schema processor to be a non-starter. Until we reach a point where XML schema (or its successor) handling and RDF parsing is just a piece of pluggable technology that you download off the shelf, I'd have to agree. jan PS. XML-schema compatability seems to be more of an "improved RDF syntax" issue, which therefore seems to be a "wait until RDF n (n > 1.0)" thing. Having a solid foundation for DTing in the _model_ is, imho, far more important and something that we can address now. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk The Java disclaimer: values of 'anywhere' may vary between regions.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 10:55:28 UTC