Re: Schemata are not just constraints [was: "RDF + Topic Maps" = TheFutu
Martin Bryan wrote in part - The problem is that > neither RDF or Topic Maps have a requirement of the supply of any > human-readable descripition of the meaning of any referenced subject. > This is one of the reasons that I strongly disagree with requirements, for either RDF or Topic Maps, that subjects (or their equivalents) have to be urns or some kind of address. They ought to be able to just be data (like strings). If you want machine-readable terms for inference or hyperlinking, fine, use them. If you want text phrases for humans to read on a display, use strings ( or data: urns). Don't restrict the map creator. Cheers, Tom P
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