- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 15 Apr 2002 08:23:28 -0400
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-04-12 at 09:47, Jonathan Borden wrote: > I am reasonably certain that is possible to develop a canonical transform > that represents an XML Schema _as_ RDF, particularly in the Ontology Web > Language. If this is actually possible, and some recent work does indeed > suggest this is possible, then my objection to having a namespace point > directly to an XML Schema is much much less. As parody, the paragraph above is brilliant. It seems that the possibilities opened by the use of URIs as namespace identifiers have not only condemned us to deal with issues surrounding deferencing namespace URIs, but to transforming W3C XML Schema into RDF - something, admittedly, that seems only slightly more ugly than working with W3C XML Schema directly. As a demonstration of the level of pain the Semantic Web culture could inflict on the less-ambitious XML world, it is simply terrifying. At least RDDL was designed with human limitations and expectations in mind. The RDF-based approaches, including the RDDL/RDF piece, seem to be marching down the road toward maximum complexity and ever-steeper learning curves. If, as Paul Cotton has suggested, this goes to a working group for further development, I'd strongly recommend including as large a slice of the XML-using public as possible in the development of requirements. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 15 April 2002 08:18:14 UTC