Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 mrossi@c... wrote: > The W3C couldn't win with XML Schema. There were to many requirements > placed on it. It seems right that there should have been one spec for > document publishers, one for database designers, one for Web apps, one for > messaging, etc., etc., etc. But if that approach had been taken, the chants > of "we must have a single unified specification" would have been heard as > loudly as the current "overcomplicated" roar. However, I do sympathize with > the development community. What we have now loses from most everyone's > perspective. Maybe a modular approach would have worked better here, with a > base schema spec for common, reusable structures/datatypes and some > "extras" modules to support the various more vertical requirements. For info, you might like to look at DARPA's DAML work (an Agent Markup Language that extends RDF / RDF Schema). This does try to pick up and use just the XML Schema Datatypes component of the spec. See: http://www.daml.org/ -> http://www.daml.org/language/ -> http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-index.html -> http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference.html#Values Comments / feedback should be sent to mailto:www-rdf-logic@w... Also note that we have just chartered a W3C Working Group (RDF Core), which will be working in this area, drawing upon the datatyping aspect of the XML Schema work. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ From this perspective, the partitioning of the XML Schema spec works quite well, imho. Dan
|
