W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2005

Re: a simpler form of rdf xml

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:42:49 +0100
Message-Id: <53B12CDC-664B-11D9-9C7C-000A95D9FA7A@bblfish.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, atom-owl@googlegroups.com
To: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>

On 14 Jan 2005, at 16:14, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> Or turn the element into a URI and
>>>> look it up to see whether it's a Class or Property.
>>> that's exactly the kind of things that people from the XML world 
>>> want to avoid (as much as they can).
>> Why?
> the first solution is way easier to implement and use than the second.

Ok great. If the only problem with my proposal is ease of implementation
then that's not a problem.

> moreover, the existing XML tools (and systems and frameworks) know 
> nothing about network-discovered and assembled schemas. they are *NOT* 
> built with an open world assumption. the most they can do is to fetch 
> a schema for validation from a URL or a catalog.

no problem. The current tools don't do some cool things. Ok, we'll go 
and build
tools that do.

There are other advantages to having an ontology that I am going to 
about in the next thread, such as allowing you to think of your xml in
OO terms. This really helps with reuse and extensibility.

> So, while the above suggestion doesn't seem like a big deal for people 
> with a concept of open world and distributed data access, it does look 
> academic for people that, like in this case, *just* want to encode 
> their blog data and metadata so that other people can use it and are 
> not afraid to recommend a way to do it.

No. I am just showing how to map any xml into a graph, withouth going 
xml/rdf, and then using an ontology (if none exists you'll have to 
write one)
to reason on the graph.

People who want to use Atom need know noting about this. They can just 
xslt if they please. It will not make it easy for them to cope with
arbitrary extensions, but that's just a limitation of their tools.

> Personally, I totally see your point and I agree that it's the most 
> elegant way to achieve that goal (because it does *NOT* require 
> anybody to agree on a way to encode elements)

great. That should allow me to move onto the next topic: Object 
Oriented XML.

> But thinking back a few years, I would have turned away in disgust.

> Also, I don't think they know about ontaria ;-)
> -- 
> Stefano.
Received on Friday, 14 January 2005 16:42:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:54 UTC