- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:57:37 +0800
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I wonder how they wrote their RELAX schema (and also Michael's XML Schema
schema).
If they just rewrote my earlier DTD from 1999, they cannot be very good :-)
And the issue of handling the dreaded abbreviated syntax looms: I think only
Schematron could handle that (actually, the Schematron schema posted does
not validate the abbreviated syntax thoroughly, due to my lack of time and
patience with it.)
I think both RELAX and XML Schemas should be good for modeling RDF, in that
their abstraction mechanisms provide a type/tag distinction. But they both
share the same problem as DTDs: one needs to enumerate the element names
explicitly in the schema for all intents and purposes. An architecture like
RDF which has type implication ("if this element has a child, it must be
this thing regardless of its name") flies in the face of conventional markup
practise (but it is the kind of pattern that I think crops up regularly, and
it is one reason why Schematron has patterns as its abstraction not elements
or "types".)
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 09:02:58 UTC