- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:18:25 +0300
- To: <garret@globalmentor.com>
- Cc: <aredridel@nbtsc.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Thanks for the update Garret. This highlights a key point I've been trying to make about the role of XML in RDF -- that to effectively *use* the knowledge expressed in the RDF/XML, you need to operate on the graph, in terms of the RDF MT -- not in terms of XML syntax/semantics. Patrick > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Garret Wilson [mailto:garret@globalmentor.com] > Sent: 14 August, 2003 17:24 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Cc: aredridel@nbtsc.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Re: Alternatives to XML for RDF? > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: ext Aredridel [mailto:aredridel@nbtsc.org] > >>Sent: 13 August, 2003 21:22 > >>To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > >>Subject: RE: Alternatives to XML for RDF? > >> > >>An easy example of this would be RSS 1.0: I'm not sure if > >>there's a spec > >>for how the XML should be formed, exactly, beyond RDF/XML rules, but > >>specifying it should be easy: > > > > Defining an XML Schema or DTD for a particular ontology, serialized > > as RDF/XML is not only doable, but commonly done. An excellent > > example is XPackage (http://www.xpackage.org) which defines a hybrid > > model for package definitions which can be interpreted as either XML > > or RDF. > > > > But that's a *particular* application, and fine (and needed) for > > validation of particular instances conforming to that particular > > application. But such things can't be done for RDF/XML in general. > > I've even backed away from this in XPackage. I originally forced > XPackage instances to both be RDF compliant and match a supplied XML > Schema, simply because some implementors didn't want to be > required to > implement a fully-blown RDF processor. I've come to realize that > requiring XML Schema compliance unnecessarily restricts the > things one > can do with XPackage. > > XPackage now provides an optional XML Schema so that one can > *produce* a > compliant XPackage instance without knowing RDF, but still requires a > fully compliant RDF processor to *consume* an XPackage instance. XML > Schema doesn't allow one to validate the complex logical > relationships > allowed by RDF. > > Garret > >
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 05:18:29 UTC