- From: Pedro Assis in Oporto <passis@dee.isep.ipp.pt>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:53:39 +0000 (WET)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Dan, Thanks for your reply. You've a point there - widely scheme distribution. Is there any standardization effort in what concerns a XML annotation language? IYO can a Schematron and XML Scheme combination somehow address this issue through Schematron embedded rule validation? Also, can you comment on RELAX NG effort and if RDF/RDFS could benefits from this technology. Regards, -- Pedro On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Dan Brickley wrote: > On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Pedro Assis in Oporto wrote: > > > If you took this approach, the XML you generated *could* losslessly be > converted back into a rich body of information. Unfortunately, nobody but > you and your immediate collaborators would be able to do this without > guesswork or special-purpose code, since the mapping that translates > between expressive OO model and the XML serialization would be a 'private' > (custom, proprietary, special-purpose etc) one. RDF's XML syntax provides > one strategy for mapping between expresive OO-style models and an XML > notation. Until we have richer XML schema annotation languages, RDF/XML > may be our best bet for ensuring that rich information models can be > turned into widely-consumable XML and back again easily. Instead of each > application inventing its own conventions for translating into markup, we > each agree to use RDF/XML as a 'good enough' middle ground. That's the > theory, anyway... > > Dan
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 13:05:44 UTC