Re: RDF "Language": definitions?

> and so on. Why not? It would be a pretty easy syntax to create and use.
Just
> a set of simple rules like "use this element anywhere", "this should be an
> attribute", "this ideally is a root element", "this element can be used
> with", etc., and drafted in XML. It would be easy to write a DTD for as
> well.

What on earth am I talking about: why don't we just use RDF Schemas?
Yes, I know, I know, but RDF Schemas don't yet provide content modelling: of
course, because they aren't XML Schemas, they are explicitly for RDF...but
we still need a content modelling system, don't we?
Well, http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#s4.2 provides us
with our glimmer of hope...because by evaluating mystery namespaces, we can
constrain other schema, and languages that we for some reason choose to
bring into our domain. For example:-
"The range and domain constraints if encountered alone would be enough to
tell us how to legally use RDF3:mysteryConstraint, but they do not tell us
anything about the nature of the constraint expressed when it is used in
that fashion. "
O.K. then. But if an application was specifically designed to grok our
schemas with that namespace offering extra content modelling, then it would
already know how to do it, so it wouldn't be a problem!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.

Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 16:36:54 UTC