- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:32:07 +0200
- To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
* Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com> [2002-06-01 11:11-0400] > Synthisizing the discussion on this thread, what do people think of > this proposal for D-AC010.1? > > Each new architectural area has its representation normatively > defined in a syntactic schema language defined in a W3C > Recommendation > > I realize that this doesn't explicitly cite XML Schema, but it narrows > the field while leaving specific options (XSDL and RDFS). This is afterall > a CSF, not a requirement. > > Comments? I don't think that "syntactic schema language" includes RDF Schema. The introduction of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schema Specification 1.0 reads[1]: RDF Schemas might be contrasted with XML Document Type Definitions (DTDs) [XML] and XML Schemas [XMLSCHEMA]. Unlike an XML DTD or Schema, which gives specific constraints on the structure of an XML document, an RDF Schema provides information about the interpretation of the statements given in an RDF data model. While an XML Schema can be used to validate the syntax of an RDF/XML expression, a syntactic schema alone is not sufficient for RDF purposes. RDF Schemas may also specify constraints that should be followed by these data models. Future work on RDF Schema and XML Schema might enable the simple combination of syntactic and semantic rules from both [SCHEMA-ARCH]. This is why I am advocating for using the generic term "schema language". Regards, Hugo 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/#intro -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 11:32:04 UTC