- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:13:43 -0700
- To: "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, "Margaret Green" <mgreen@nextance.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> I think you are right --- we have a situation where a bunch of different > scientists are each publishing data, meant to be used by others. XML > schema forces them into a model where they all have to agree to a schema > and use that to publish their data. If one of them has a new kind of data > that hasn't been thought off before, then it could be tough luck. Well, if you want your RDF to interoperate, it needs to have a consistent schema or a mapping between your RDF schema and the other guy's. This is exactly the same situation with XML Schema. > > 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. Using "explicate" where "explain" would do is not very "explicative". In any case, I don't exactly understand the point. Are you saying that it is impossible to come up with a schema until all knowledge has been captured?
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:14:17 UTC