Dan Connolly writes: > $ HEAD http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema > 200 OK > > So the draft proposes that http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema > identifies both an information resource and a language. > Is it just me, or does this seem like a map/territory bug, to others? Not to me. As I've been pointing out before, if assertions are expressed in a formal knowledge representation which properly distinguishes languages from "information resources" there is no problem. Consider DOLCE's corresponding term for 'linguistic object': <owl:Class rdf:about="#linguistic-object"> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl#information-object"/> <rdfs:subClassOf> <owl:Restriction> <owl:someValuesFrom rdf:resource="http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl#information-encoding-system"/> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl#ordered-by"/> </owl:Restriction> </rdfs:subClassOf> <rdfs:comment rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string" >An information object ordered by (encoded according to) a language.</rdfs:comment> </owl:Class> There is a *clear* (ontological) seperation between the document (information object/resource) and the language it is encoded in. IMO, The bug here is with the mechanism used to conclude the nature of http://www.w3.org/XML/XMLSchema not, the draft. > There are languages and there are documents that specify/describe > languages, but those classes don't intersect, do they? In DOLCE (see [1] & [2]) they *may* (I couldn't determine this from a quick perusal) but at the very least, the semantics of what a document is and a language encoding is clearly articulated. [1] http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/InformationObjects.owl [2] http://www.loa-cnr.it/ontologies/ExtendedDnS.owl -- ChimezieReceived on Wednesday, 12 September 2007 20:27:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC