- From: Margaret Green <mgreen@nextance.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:37:05 -0700
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sorry :-> -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:34 PM To: Margaret Green Subject: RE: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS Did you mean to send this to the list? If so, please feel forward to send with my reply too ;-) conjecture: Right, me too. I think the situation Guha has is that the knowledge they are using has been modelled successfully already (I agree that is a hard part, and one value of an RDF-based system). The power of being able to generate assertions that lead to new assertions isn't restricted to RDF - the same things are modelled in special-purpose XML schemas. But again it is the general applicability that RDF adds as value... I think... cheers Charles On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Margaret Green wrote: First remember I am only involved in conjecture. Intuitions. 1. New knowledge can't be modeled ahead of time, before it takes form. Without form I'm hard pressed to explicate a strong structure definition in XML Schema. 2. RDF Model Theory in 6.2 of RDFS-entailment and RDFS closures lists a set of closures to be applied to generate "all legal RDF triples". I can see that the addition of an analysis result triple could cause other triples to be generated that would be new connections to other analyses. Margaret Green -----Original Message----- From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 2:01 PM To: Margaret Green Cc: R.V.Guha; www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: RE: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS Are these inferences that cannot be built on using XML and schema for everything, and then processing with XML queries? It seems to me that often most of the use cases can be satisfied that way, but that there are some interesting ones which can't. In working on the EARL specification we are now considering requiring that conformant applications can produce a particular XML syntax (which would probably be a particular view of RDF/XML) as well as being able to handle real RDF. The idea is that there are some things which are really RDF problems - extending the types of results from "fail" to "nearly passes", "passes except for X", "fails except for Y" or "completely fails" is easy in RDF, where the result can be held, and processed if it is understood, or processed just as a type of "fails". On the other hand there are a lot of applications that can be accomplished by simple XML approaches - put everything in a rigid tree, so I can optimise searching for content that passes some set of requirements. It seems to me that it is fairly easy to convert an XML schema into RDF+etc, but not easy to do the other way around. Is it useful to ask "why should RDF applications not have an XML Schema"? chaals On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Margaret Green wrote: Their analyses produce results. These results are assertions. I would model the analytical results. There may be the potential for inferences to be drawn among sets of results - a form of meta-analysis, if you will. Margaret Green -----Original Message----- From: R.V.Guha [mailto:guha@guha.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:24 PM To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: XML Schema vs DAML/RDF/RDFS I was talking yesterday to a friend whose is working with some geologists who want to share data. They are of course planning on using xml and are in the process of writing up their xml schemas. They have applications that do all kinds of sophisticated analysis on this data. They have no need of doing the kinds of inferences that rdfs/daml enables. Their apps do computations that are far more complex and it would be easy for them to modify their apps to make it do the few (if any) inferential facilities rdfs/daml offers, if the need arises. I tried to make a case for rdf/rdfs/daml, but given the substantially more tools available for xml/xml schema and their lack of interest in simple inferences, I couldn't in good faith push too hard for rdf/rdfs/daml. So, should they be using rdfs/daml? Why? guha -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 17:37:59 UTC