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 ]Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 13:56:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:27 UTC