W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002


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>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFEEFJFMAA.danny666@virgilio.it>


If one of them has a new kind of
>> 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
>> > Without form I'm hard pressed to explicate a strong structure
>> > 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

I'm pretty sure this wasn't what was being suggested.

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 19:21:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC