- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:15:15 +0200
- To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, "Margaret Green" <mgreen@nextance.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[snip] 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. RDF is a lot more amenable to interoperability between schema because the mapping itself can itself be readily expressed using RDF(S) in such a way that modifications/additions can be made without breaking existing systems. This isn't really the case with XML Schema (IMHO) because the emphasis is more on structure than meaning. A tree (I would hazard) is inherently more brittle than a graph. >> > 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". It's an extendable language, innit? >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? I'm pretty sure this wasn't what was being suggested. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 19:21:04 UTC