- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:39:32 -0400
- To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
+1 On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 05:32:07PM +0200, Hugo Haas wrote: > > * 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 -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 09:29:49 UTC