- From: Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:59:26 -0700
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Joshua Allen wrote: > > > I feel like I'm not making any progress here though in one idea, and > > that is that linking to "RDF" is almost like linking to "XML" -- one > > needs to specify what specific grammar of RDF is being served. > Otherwise, > > the processor has no understanding of the semantics of the received > RDF. > > Very perceptive - since this list is populated by people who are > interested in RDF as a general tool that abstracts out the details of > particular grammars, then it would seem a bit odd to find people here > who thought RDF was not useful in such contexts. I am sure we can all > understand the trepidation of someone who is not an RDF-Head, but that > doesn't make the entire approach invalid. I have to ask if you have yet > read the Cambridge Communique? This question of "processor has no > understanding" should have been suitably answered in that -- the XHTML > processor may wish to validate the most basic things about the structure > of the RDF section, using an XML Schema, but it is not necessary, > desirable, or even remotely useful to have the XHTML processor attempt > to validate any further -- the validation of the semantics, the RDF > grammar(s) being used, etc. -- all of these are the domain of RDF, and > should not be the concern of XHTML. The "Cambridge Communique" sounds curiously like a manifesto. No, I haven't read it. Do I have to agree to its tenets before proceeding? I'm trying to approach this without being an RDF-Head, as surely if I were to become one I'd have less value to a group of RDF-Heads, no? I'm neither speaking as an XHTML-Head, merely one who believes that it shouldn't be a requirement on anyone to profess a religious view in order to participate. I hear overtones of that here, just as I do in XHTML, topic map, ontological, etc. circles. It's certainly rather common and understandable. But so long as we all stay within our particular castes, we're less likely to find a more global solution. I don't advocate that an "XHTML processor" attempt validation of RDF, I'm speaking generally for XML processing. I don't think either RDF or XHTML deserve special treatment in this light. Murray ........................................................................... Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com> XML Technology Center Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025 the wood louse sits on a splinter and sings to the rising sap ain't it awful how winter lingers in springtimes lap -- archy
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 19:57:33 UTC