- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:30:25 -0500
- To: www-tag@w3.org
At the W3C Tech Plenary, Dave Orchard raised discussion of "When is "must ignore" reasonable for non-rendering semantics?" -- http://www.w3.org/2004/Talks/0303-tagext/slide5-0.html in extensibility and versioning, and Henry Thompson made a point that ignoring only works when the semantics of elements are independent from each other. Another speaker mentioned the importance of explicitly describing relationships between versions. It occurred to me that in a way, RDF/XML syntax takes the principle of independence of elements to an extreme. And the whole purpose RDF schema mechanisms like rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf is for describing relationships between versions. The cwm tool was designed for demonstrating, among other things, how to exploit relationships between versions of vocabulary. If you're interested, see the tutorial http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/ esp the bit on rule-based processing http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/Processing Hmm... maybe I'll add a section to the tutorial on versioning in particular. I had a start of a demo somewhere... ah yes... http://www.w3.org/2001/05ve/ I think the TAG should advise XML vocabulary designers that if this sort of versioning is important to them, they should give RDF a serious look. I hope to draft something soon. Has anybody out there already got something relevant? Anybody want to help? for reference: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#XMLVersioning-41 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 04:30:27 UTC