Re: XSchema Question 1: RDF
At 04:08 30/05/98 -0400, Liam Quin wrote: >On Fri, 29 May 1998, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >> How will XSchema use/relate to RDF? > >"There's a difficult and complex piece of work going on at W3C that > has clear and direct impact on what we are doing, but we're a little > intimidated by it and want something simpler, sooner" I think this is a useful summary. The 'clear and direct impact' may, however, depend on how closely we limit our goals. In we are trying to express non-DTD constraints then we would be foolish to ignore RDF. If we are simply translating current DTDs into XSchema then we may not need it *at present*. The question is whether a current simple approach may seriously undermine future extension. I can't answer that since I don't have a full enough appreciation of what RDF would require of us. >I rather think that the best long-term result will come by working >closely with the RDF people. It isn't clear to me that an XSchema >should be an RDF application, but it _does_ seem clear that where >there is overlap, there should be compatibility. Agreed. The question is how do we determine overlap and compatibility. For this we have to have input from people who understand RDF, think they know where it is going, and think they know what the timescale of the various bits are. [...] > >Perhaps the answer is, see where the overlap turns out to be, and >make the most of it. This in practice means (1) understanding the >current RDF draft, (2) keeping an eye on both, (3) not being afraid >to merge. > >People _will_ have to deal with RDF, so let's not make the world more >complex than it already needs to be by doing the same things >differently... > >Where XSchema does different things from RDF, though, where the overlap >is not complete, clearly it will need to go its own way. Here's a practical suggestion. Let's: (a) ask any RDFophiles reading this discussion if they can suggest what the *simplest possible* XSchema would look like in RDF notation (a small sample would suffice). They should be able to give a flavour of this fairly shortly. (b) *simultaneously* define what our simplest possible schema would look like. A number of us have posted bits of such a schema (Element, Attribute, ContentSpec and no relations/constraints). I have also been sent privately an example of a complete proposed xschema.dtd In this way we shan't be held back. If xschema.xsc and xschema.rdf are algorithmically transformable, then this could be a starting point. [Although we must remember we have required XSchemas to be simple for humans to read and author - I'd hate to lose that.] If xschema.rdf is considerably more complex than xschema.xsc then we will have to make a pragmatic decision. If xschema.rdf requires tools that don't yet exist we may have to decide on the importance of short-term progress. [I am not averse to creating xschema.xsc as a limited-term project which will help people manage document creation until full-strength RDF tools come along.] P. Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic net connection VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format