Re: "If the Semantic Web were ever going to fail..."

Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com> wrote:

>>> The Schema layer, when applied to RDF, will be the downfall
>>> of the Semantic Web, simply because it isn't viable to apply
>>> XML Schemas to RDF.
>> I have no idea what you mean by this. Why is this the downfall of
>> the Semantic Web?
> RDF Schemas don't convey structure, and XML Schemas don't convey semantics.
> Therefore, when it comes to such a time as we need RDF systems wih
> structure, I think it will be very difficult to achieve.

What do you mean by structure? I believe rdfs:range and rdfs:domain allow
this. If you need datatypes, then you can use XML datatypes. If you need
something else, than come up with a language to describe it. You aren't
limited to RDF and XML schemas -- come up with your own! That's what RELAX,
Schematron and others have done. If you feel RDF documents need more
structure, come up with a language to describe it.

> Tim seems to be implying that...RDF apps.... won't require any form of strict
> datatyping, as provided by XML Schemas.

I don't see that in your quote. And if it does need it, then you can use XML
schema datatypes through RDF assertions!

> look at all of the non-standard tags already introduced into M&S and RDF
> Schemas already (see Dave Beckett's list: sorry I've lost the URI).

Non-standard tags? I don't recall a list of non-standard tags... Dave
provided a list of standard ones, though.

> If there was to be a langauge so complex in it's use that it required an XML
> Schema as well, I believe that that would add so much complexity to a system
> as to simply choke it.

Now I'm really lost.

> RDF and XML Schemas, are both either not-suitable for the job, or are
> suitable, but simply too complex for anyone to apply.

What job? I'm sorry Sean, but I don't understand what you're saying.

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]