Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> RDDL does at least provide an opportunity to gather the > rest of the parts and make their alignment explicit. True, but there needs to be some vocabulary of terms for providing further information on whether the method of constraint is subjective or objective. For example, XML schema languages such as XSD, TREX, RELAX and so forth are seen as objective languages, whereas RDF and XTM are more subjective (although inclusions of XSD and DAML to the vocabularies means that this doesn't have to be the case... you could probably use RDF as an XML schema language). UML is a bit of an oddity - more akin to object oriented programming methods, and hence procedural rather than necessarily sub/objective. In XML, what we often have is the namespace, and then a method of constraint on top of that. There are some complications in the RDF uses the concatenation style mechanism to create terms for these "names", and hence methods of constraint can clash, such as in XHTML where "title" is used as both an element and an attribute. Such a language would need to specify URIs for inclusion in RDF. But I digress. We have the names, we have the URIs, we have the constraints. I agree that mapping between them can sometimes be useful, but you must consider the layering that goes on - you have the abstract concepts, inference data and prose on the one hand, and then you have the syntactic constraints below that. It is usual for one to follow the other (usually the syntactic schemata following the abstract stuff), and so the mappings can be one way. You also have to allow for evolution, which is a consideration. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
|
